ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Foreign Criminals (Removal)

Andrea Leadsom: What steps she is taking to prevent abuse of article 8 of the European convention on human rights in respect of the removal of foreign criminals.

Mark Harper: Last July, we changed the immigration rules to ensure that, under article 8, the rights of society are properly balanced against the individual rights of foreign national offenders. The rules received the unanimous support of this House. Unfortunately, some judges are not applying the rules as Parliament intended, and our Immigration Bill will give the full force of primary legislation to them.

Andrea Leadsom: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer. What more can he do to try to ensure that judges strike the proper balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of society, which are sometimes under threat from them? Can he persuade judges to listen to the will of Parliament?

Mark Harper: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. Of course this House thought that that is exactly what it had done, as it sent a very clear message to judges about the balance that this House, on behalf of society, had struck to put the rights of the innocent first. Judges have not got the message, which is why we will legislate to make sure that it is reflected in the law.

Chris Bryant: Given what the Minister has just said, why on earth was the number of foreign criminals deported in 2011 just 4,522, whereas in the last year of the Labour Government it was 5,528? The Government are failing on this, and it is little to do with what he has said. Given that one of the best ways of making sure that suspected criminals are deported from this country is the European arrest warrant, which extradites them elsewhere, why on earth are the Government thinking of withdrawing from it?

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman should know that this is about exactly the reason I set out; he will know, if he has done his research, that between 2011 and 2012 there was a significant increase, of more than 1,000, in the number of appeals made by criminals to prevent their deportation. That is exactly why we need to take action, and it is another area we will deal with in the Immigration Bill.

Gerald Howarth: May I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Home Secretary on the determination with which they have pursued this matter? I invite my hon. Friend to recall the remarks made by the Prime Minister last week in answer to me, when he expressed great concern about the European Court of Human Rights, which has been subverted from its original intention. Are the Government still prepared that the United Kingdom should secede, because the British people are absolutely fed up with this Court?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend will know that the Government have laid out our position clearly. I suspect that the issue he mentions—what happens to the Human
	Rights Act and with this country’s relationship with the European Court—will be dealt with in debate at the general election.

Benefit Tourism

Glyn Davies: What steps she is taking to reduce benefit tourism.

Theresa May: The Home Office will tighten regulations to time-limit the right of unemployed European economic area nationals to reside and claim benefits to six months, unless they can prove they are looking for a job and have a genuine chance of getting one. The Department for Work and Pensions is also taking steps to tighten further its rules on access to benefits.

Glyn Davies: The Minister recently visited Wales to see at first hand the work that enforcement officers are doing to stop illegal workers. Will the Secretary of State use the forthcoming Immigration Bill to tackle illegal immigrants who are accessing services to which they are not entitled?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. My hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration was pleased to be able to visit Wales to see this at first hand. We will indeed use the Immigration Bill better to regulate migrant access to benefits and public services. We will: get tougher on employers of illegal workers; prevent illegal migrants from obtaining driving licences; and require private landlords to make checks on prospective tenants. We will also further restrict access to social housing and restrict migrant access to benefits by tightening the habitual residence test and closing the loophole that currently allows migrants without a right to work here to access contributory benefits. With our European partners, we will also tackle free movement abuse and its impact on social welfare and public services, and we welcome the commitment by EU Ministers at last Friday’s meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council to finding EU-wide solutions to this problem.

David Wright: The Home Secretary mentioned access to housing, which is clearly an important point in relation to people coming into this country. What work has she done with the Department for Communities and Local Government on this issue, particularly in relation to private landlords? How can we do this if we do not have a statutory register?

Theresa May: Nice try, but the answers on the statutory register are the same as the Government have been giving the Opposition for some months now. I have had a number of discussions with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, as has my hon. Friend the Immigration Minister. I am pleased to say that we have proposals that will ensure that we can indeed tighten access to housing for illegal migrants.

Phillip Lee: The good people of Bracknell want their local health services to be used appropriately. Apparently, there is more than £500,000 outstanding on invoices to overseas patients, just from Heatherwood and Wexham Park Hospitals
	NHS Foundation Trust. Does the Secretary of State agree that migrant access to the NHS needs to be better regulated?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for his question, particularly as, like him, I have constituents who use that trust. We have a national health service, not an international health service. The rules governing migrant access to the NHS are too generous and ineffectively applied, meaning that they are open to abuse. That is why the Government propose reforming the residence test that governs free NHS access, and are proposing options under which temporary migrants would make a contribution before they used our health service— either through an up-front NHS access fee, or through comprehensive health insurance. We also intend to end free unrestricted access to general practitioners by visitors and illegal migrants, and to introduce measures better to identify patients who must be charged.

Kate Green: The impact of the migration rules on the benefits bill can cut two ways. This afternoon, the all-party group on migration, of which I am a member, published a report showing that some British families have been forced to claim benefits because a spouse who could support them cannot be admitted to this country. Will the Home Secretary consider the report of the all-party group carefully, especially the impact of the family migration rules on benefits claims?

Theresa May: I can assure the hon. Lady that the Government look carefully at all-party group reports on areas that relate to, or affect, the Home Office. On the changes that we propose to access to public services, and on the whole issue of people coming to join families, there is a principle, which is about being able to ensure that where people are accessing public services, they are services that they have contributed to. This is a great concern for many members of the public, and it is right for the Government to tighten it up.

Julian Brazier: I welcome everything that my right hon. Friend is doing in this area. May I urge her, in the context of the all-party group, to carry out a realistic assessment of how much it costs to support a family, especially in southern England, and of whether the limit of around £18,500 is high enough?

Theresa May: When we set the limit we did not just pluck a figure from thin air; we asked the independent Migration Advisory Committee to propose a figure. It proposed a range of numbers, from £18,600 to a higher figure. The Government chose to go with £18,600; we felt that was the appropriate figure to use, although, of course, the amount is higher for those who have children in the family. When there is one child, it goes up to £22,400, and it goes up for each further child thereafter. I assure my hon. Friend that the work was done independently by the Migration Advisory Committee.

Sheila Gilmore: I was left unclear about the Secretary of State’s earlier answer about private landlords. If we do not know where landlords and private lets are—we will not know that without a statutory register—how exactly will we make the system work?

Theresa May: I have to say to the hon. Lady that the Opposition have been calling for a statutory register of landlords for weeks, if not months, but it is something that, in 13 years in government, they did not bother to introduce.

Operation Alice

Richard Ottaway: What progress is being made on Operation Alice; and if she will make a statement.

Damian Green: The Metropolitan police are conducting an investigation under the supervision of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. My hon. Friend will understand that there is nothing that I can add to that in Parliament without straying into the territory of a criminal IPCC investigation.

Richard Ottaway: We have a situation where police from the Met appear to have fabricated evidence against a Cabinet Minister; the Met Commissioner is put in charge of the investigation and admits to discussing the case with journalists; in breach of his own rules, he fails to keep a note of the discussion; and, six months later, we do not even have a report. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Commissioner has a lot of questions to answer?

Damian Green: I am as eager as my hon. Friend is to see justice done at the end of this episode, but I am sure that he will understand that the service of justice would not be improved by my providing a running commentary, from the Dispatch Box, on an ongoing criminal investigation.

Keith Vaz: The Commissioner promised a ruthless search for the truth when he established Operation Alice, but, as the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) said, this has taken eight months, involved 30 investigating police officers and cost the taxpayer £144,000 for an incident in Downing street that lasted 45 seconds. We are not asking for a running commentary; we are just asking the Minister when we can have a timetable so that this and other investigations currently costing £23 million in terms of past errors by the police are investigated thoroughly but quickly?

Damian Green: This is an investigation done partly by the Metropolitan police, who are operationally independent, and by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, so it is not for Ministers to set timetables. Indeed, I urge the House to recognise that to ask Ministers to intervene closely and in detail in the work of operationally independent police forces or the IPCC would be the wrong way to go.

David Davis: In view of the revelations of the past week, will the policing Minister put in place a strict disciplinary code that requires all police officers of all ranks to keep a comprehensive and accurate record of all contacts they have with the press?

Damian Green: I will, as ever, listen carefully to my right hon. Friend’s suggestions, but I emphasise the important distinction, which I know that he as much as anyone would recognise, between actions that should be taken by Ministers and actions that need to be taken by operationally independent police forces.

Tom Watson: After a terribly bruising encounter at the hands of the media, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) attempted to clear his name in the press. It now seems apparent that he was the victim of media spin at the highest level of the Metropolitan police. Does the Minister understand that this case is particularly important not because the wronged party was a Member of Parliament but because it could happen to any one of our constituents who do not have the vehicle to put things right?

Damian Green: I absolutely understand the importance and the very many lessons that may well be drawn from that case. What I should not and will not do is draw any conclusions in the middle of the investigation.

Crispin Blunt: The Channel 4 “Dispatches” programme took 10 days to establish that the video record was completely at odds with the police account of events. Since the police have now interviewed 800 officers, spent £144,000 and taken eight months apparently to go nowhere, might it not be an idea to invite Channel 4’s “Dispatches” to be put in charge of the investigation, as it appears to be more effective and would certainly be more independent?

Damian Green: I am, as ever, grateful for my hon. Friend’s suggestions, which I am sure will be heard in the appropriate quarters.

TPIMs

Stephen McCabe: How many people made subject to a terrorism prevention and investigation measure order have subsequently been charged and prosecuted since the inception of the TPIM regime.

Heidi Alexander: How many prosecutions have been brought against those subject to a terrorism prevention and investigation measure regime was introduced.

James Brokenshire: Prosecution is always our preferred option to deal with terror suspects. TPIMs are used to protect the public from individuals whom we cannot currently prosecute or deport. The police will seek a prosecution if new admissible evidence comes to light. As of 28 February, the end of the last reporting period, four charges had been brought in relation to TPIM subjects, with one prosecution.

Stephen McCabe: Given that the Minister sought to make more prosecutions a central feature of his argument for replacing control orders with the TPIM regime, and that there has been very little progress in prosecution— I think there were three failed prosecutions for those who had breached their TPIM order—does the hon.
	Gentleman regret making such proud boasts in the House that have proved so ridiculously optimistic, if not downright wrong?

James Brokenshire: As I indicated, prosecution remains the primary objective in relation to terrorism offences. I hope the hon. Gentleman would, for example, congratulate the work of the police, the Security Service and prosecutors in successfully securing lengthy prison sentences today in respect of six individuals for planning a terrorist incident in Dewsbury last year. The focus certainly remains on investigating TPIM subjects, and I would have hoped that he recognises the package of TPIMs plus the additional resources that have been made available to the police and the security services for that purpose.

Heidi Alexander: The independent reviewer of terrorism, David Anderson QC, has recommended that the Government release the regional location of individuals who are subject to a TPIM. This information would let my constituents know whether potential terrorism suspects had returned to London. Why did the Minister refuse this perfectly reasonable request?

James Brokenshire: I congratulate the independent reviewer, David Anderson, on his work. He has underlined the fact that the TPIM regime continues to provide a high degree of protection against those subjects who cannot be prosecuted or deported. We considered carefully his specific recommendation on the location of TPIM subjects. We believe that such disclosure might make it harder to manage TPIM subjects and add to community tensions, but we will certainly keep his recommendations under review.

Diana Johnson: One individual currently on a TPIM is AM, who was originally detained for being involved in a plot to bomb an aircraft. He was described by Mr Justice Wilkie in the High Court as “highly intelligent” and
	“prepared to be a martyr in an attack designed to take many lives”.
	Under the coalition’s TPIM regime, he has been allowed back to London. As his TPIM has already been renewed once, it cannot be renewed again. Will the Minister confirm that once AM’s TPIM expires next year, Ministers will have no power to supervise him or restrict his movements?

James Brokenshire: For TPIM subjects, the time period is a maximum of two years, as the hon. Lady highlights. At the end of that period, a number of alternatives may be available. If there is sufficient evidence, it may be possible to bring a prosecution. At the end of that period, if there is evidence of new terrorist-related activity, it is possible to secure a further TPIM. The Security Service and police robustly enforce the TPIM regime and manage subjects in the community, and I have every confidence in their ability to do so.

Front-line Policing (London)

Andy Slaughter: What assessment she has made of the ability of the public to access front-line police services through the provision of local police stations in London boroughs.

Damian Green: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I regularly meet the Mayor of London and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to discuss policing in London. The Mayor and Commissioner are responsible for ensuring that their officers are accessible. Following extensive consultation with the public, led by the Mayor's office, the Met will add 2,600 officers to neighbourhood policing teams, and there will now be around 200 safer neighbourhood bases to enhance this access.

Andy Slaughter: West London has lost 400 police officers in the last three years, 44 in Hammersmith and Fulham. Half of all police community support officers have gone and now my local police station, Shepherd’s Bush, is closed to the public. When my constituents cannot find an officer or a police station, does the Minister seriously expect them to report serious crimes such as rape and sexual abuse in their post office or in Tesco?

Damian Green: I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents welcome the fact that crime in Hammersmith and Fulham has gone down by more than 4.5% in the past year. I am glad that he brought up the Shepherd’s Bush front counter because the latest data show that the number of visitors each day to that counter was fewer than six. If he thinks that that is a good use of police resources, frankly, he is not fit to run the proverbial whelk stall.

Jane Ellison: Wandsworth came pretty much the lowest in a reform think tank league table of visits to London front desks, with only 1.2 visitors an hour. My local police inspector has confirmed that as a result of shutting a front desk, he can put more resources on the front line. Does the Minister agree that that is a good use of the police’s time?

Damian Green: I do agree. My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point. The way to cut crime is to have police officers deployed correctly, not to have buildings open that in many cases very few people ever visited.

Karen Buck: In addition to losing more than 200 police officers, in Westminster, three out of the four police stations north of Oxford street are closing. This is not just a question of access for reporting crime, although that can be important, but of community bases from where safer neighbourhood teams can operate. Does the Minister agree that the Mayor’s consultation proposal of surgeries of one hour a week to replace those police stations represents a massive reduction in police accessibility?

Damian Green: No, I do not. The hon. Lady says that front counters are important for reporting crime, but only one in eight crimes are reported that way, so they are not as important as they used to be. She needs to accept that a more flexible approach to making the police accessible—for example, by making them available at regular times of the week in places where people are anyway—is much better than having them sitting in police stations that we know many people will never visit.

Stella Creasy: On policing resources in London, following the strong words of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, will the Minister
	join the Opposition in condemning the recent attacks on Islamic institutions, which put many lives at risk and sought to spread fear among our communities, and will he ensure that all our religious institutions are properly protected from those who wish to spread hatred, division and terror?

Damian Green: I am very happy to share the hon. Lady’s sentiment. I am sure that everyone in the House will abhor and reject in the strongest possible terms the attacks on religious institutions that we have seen since the terrible event in Woolwich. I commend the Metropolitan police for ensuring that the protection available is greater than normal, because that is very important.

Policing

Jonathan Reynolds: When she next expects to discuss policing with the Police Federation.

Theresa May: Both the policing Minister and I regularly meet representatives of the Police Federation and other policing partners to discuss a wide range of issues, and we greatly value those meetings. We will continue to engage with police officers and staff to ensure that their opinions help to shape the future of policing.

Jonathan Reynolds: Is the Home Secretary reviewing the use of community resolutions, which were used 10,000 times for serious violent crimes last year, and which the Police Federation has said are connected to the police having to do more with less?

Theresa May: We are looking in general at the whole question of out-of-court disposals to ensure that they are being treated proportionately but also consistently across the country, but the whole question of community resolutions and restorative justice plays an important part in resolving crime, and victims often welcome such resolutions, but of course we keep that under review.

Tony Baldry: Did the Police Federation persuade the Home Secretary that any of the proposals in either of the Winsor reports were unreasonable or unfair?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am pleased that the recommendations of the Winsor report on important reforms to police pay and conditions are, in the main, being put into place. There are one or two aspects that the police arbitration tribunal decided to refer back or not to progress at this stage, and on both occasions I accepted its response, but I must say that I was not persuaded by the Police Federation’s argument that we should abandon the Winsor proposals.

Gareth Thomas: When the Home Secretary next meets the Police Federation, will she discuss police numbers in Harrow, where we have seen a reduction in the number of PCs, PCSOs and other police staff from 516 in March 2010 to just over 400 three years later, a 22% drop and part of the loss of over 4,000 PCs and PCSOs in London since the general election?

Theresa May: I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that crime in London has fallen by 3% over the past year or so, which I think reflects the work that has been done by police offices and others. We all want to see crime continue to fall, because that means better protection for our constitutions, whether in Harrow or anywhere else.

Philip Hollobone: When the Home Secretary next meets the Police Federation, will she highlight the success in Northamptonshire, where crime is falling and the new police and crime commissioner, Adam Simmonds, and the chief constable, Adrian Lee, are not moaning about their lot or about budgetary restraints but getting on with providing an effective three-point policing plan that involves a crackdown on criminals, prevention rather than cure and maintaining police numbers and visibility at 1,220 full-time equivalent officers?

Theresa May: I wholeheartedly endorse my hon. Friend’s comments. I think that that is a good example of how chief constables and police and crime commissioners—Adam Simmonds is doing a first-class job as PCC in Northamptonshire—can work together to ensure that they deliver what the public want, which is policing that reduces crime, which has gone down by 4% in Northamptonshire, and confidence in the security of their neighbourhoods.

William McCrea: Further to discussions that the Home Secretary might have with the Police Federation, what recent discussions have been held between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the police service on the mainland on the secondment of police officers to police the G8 conference in Enniskillen?

Theresa May: There has been considerable contact on this matter. My right hon. Friend the policing Minister met representatives of the Police Federation of England and Wales to discuss any issues that they wished to raise about the secondment of officers to work alongside the PSNI to police the G8 conference. I am pleased to say that I have met a small number of police officers who will be giving mutual aid to Northern Ireland and who were very complimentary about the training course they have undergone to do that work.

Visas

Richard Burden: What assessment she has made of increases in waiting times for visa decisions.

Mark Harper: The Home Office’s performance in granting visa applications overseas has been excellent and remains so, with average waiting times decreasing rather than increasing. As I have acknowledged myself at the Dispatch Box, there have been problems with our in-country performance in the past financial year, but since the abolition of the UK Border Agency and the creation of UK Visa and Immigration we have got that on the right path, with waiting times decreasing too.

Richard Burden: We are probably all aware from our own casework of the real problems that visa delays cause for our constituents. Given that the average waiting
	time for a skilled worker—somebody whom the British economy needs—has gone up from 36 days in 2010 to 56 days in 2012, does the Minister really think that measures of the kind he mentions are going to crack the problem, and if so, when are we going to see the results?

Mark Harper: I acknowledged openly and honestly that there had been a problem in the past financial year, and that is what the figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman reflect. However, as I said, in the past quarter the figures have improved, so when they are published in the instalment of that information that we give to the Home Affairs Committee, he will see that we are getting things back on track. There is an open session with Members of Parliament this Wednesday, and I hope he will attend to listen to the steps we are taking to improve performance.

James Gray: Will the Minister pay particular attention to the business community in China, where there is evidence that people are being disincentivised from coming to the UK because it is easier to get elsewhere in the EU and because of the time taken? Surely there is an argument for having a fast-track procedure for bona fide business visitors from China so that they can come to Britain to help our economy.

Mark Harper: I am grateful for that question because it gives me an opportunity to set out the excellent performance we deliver on visas applied for from China. We grant 96% of visa applications and deliver 95% of those within 15 days; for business visitors, we deliver the vast majority within five days. We are increasingly rolling out premium services, with an ongoing increasing performance level, for the very reasons that my hon. Friend sets out.

Virendra Sharma: The recent report on family migration by the all-party migration group—I am vice-chair of the inquiry committee—shows that the processing time for non-European economic area partner applications has significantly increased over the past 18 years. What is the Minister doing to keep families united rather than dividing them?

Mark Harper: My response to the hon. Gentleman, who takes a very close interest in these matters, is similar to the one that I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). He is right: in the past financial year, those processing times increased. We have split family applications for spouses from, so to speak, straightforward applications, and we are making decisions on them much more quickly. They had been grouped with applications that were taking a great deal of time. The hon. Gentleman will see in the latest figures that we have made a great improvement, and I hope to see more of that in future.

Julian Huppert: The Minister clearly has a personal commitment to getting waiting times down—I thank him for his recent visit to Cambridge to see some of problems there—but will he be able to change the culture within the new borders agency? After all, the permanent secretary, Mark Sedwill, said:
	“Most of us will still be doing the same job in the same place with the same colleagues for the same boss.”
	We want the Minister to succeed, but will he be able to?

Mark Harper: I very much hope so. I was encouraged by my visit to Cambridge with my hon. Friend, where I listened, yes, to some of the concerns that people had, but also to an acknowledgement by the university, for example, that it had seen recent improvement. The new interim director general of UK Visa and Immigration, Sarah Rapson, has a great commitment to creating such a culture. I think that the decision taken by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to end the UK Border Agency and set up the new approach will be successful.

Crime Levels

Karen Lumley: What assessment she has made of the contribution of police measures to falling crime levels.

Chris White: What assessment she has made of the contribution of police measures to falling crime levels.

Theresa May: Recorded crime is down by more than 10% under this Government. The latest figures show that this downward trend is replicated across every police force in England and Wales. Our reforms are working.

Karen Lumley: In my own area of West Mercia, crime fell by a huge 11% last year. This is due in large part to the dedication of people such as Inspector Ian Joseph and his team in Redditch. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating West Mercia police on the excellent work they do in Redditch and the wider region?

Theresa May: I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating West Mercia police on the 11% fall in crime shown by the most recent figures and, in particular, Inspector Ian Joseph and his team in Redditch. Dedicated police officers across the country are working to keep our streets safe and to protect members of the public.

Chris White: According to the latest figures, crime in Warwickshire has decreased by 12.4%, meaning that 80 fewer crimes a day are being committed across the county. This reflects the excellent work of the officers of the Warwickshire police force and I am delighted that its chief constable, Andy Parker, has been reappointed for another two years. Will the Home Secretary join me in congratulating Warwickshire police force and commit to supporting forces such as Warwickshire in reducing crime through strong neighbourhood policing?

Theresa May: Once again, I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating all the officers of Warwickshire police force on the work they are doing and, indeed, Chief Constable Andy Parker on his reappointment.

Barry Sheerman: The Home Secretary will know that one of the most expensive crimes to investigate is child sexual exploitation. She will also know of this morning’s excellent report by the Home Affairs Committee. When I started a campaign about these gangs five years ago, the police told me on occasion after occasion that the reason why they were so slow to respond to the total scandal of the exploitation
	of children was that it was expensive and the resource implications were immense. Do they have the resources now?

Theresa May: We will of course look very carefully at the Home Affairs Committee report. I am aware that a number of Members remain concerned about ensuring that the police response to cases of child sexual exploitation is appropriate. As well as the hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) has taken a particular interest in the issue. Across Government we have pulled together a cross-departmental piece of work to look at the lessons we need to learn from recent and, indeed, historic cases of sexual exploitation. I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice will lead that work at ministerial level, asking questions about the police response and ensuring that it is appropriate.

Gloria De Piero: It is vital to use police time properly, but Ministers are taking police officers off the beat for 152,000 hours in order to train them in things such as changing the name of a litter clearing notice to a community protection notice and of a crack house closure order to a closure order. That is not the best use of police time, is it?

Theresa May: I am pleased to say that the figures show that the percentage of police officers who will be involved on the front line is going up under this Government. Moreover, through the action we have taken to reduce bureaucracy and red tape—something the previous Government did not do—this Government have cut the number of hours taken on bureaucracy by 4.5 million man hours.

Illegal Labour

Ian Austin: What change there has been in the number of businesses fined for employing illegal labour since 2010.

Mark Harper: Dealing with illegal working is a priority for the Government. As has been mentioned, I attended an illegal working operation in Cardiff about a week ago and saw a number of successful arrests of people who were working illegally. We want to do more of this. Recent figures have not been as encouraging as one would have hoped. This year, with the creation of the immigration enforcement command, I am determined to see an increased focus on the issue in order to deliver the results we expect.

Ian Austin: Despite all that, the Minister has not had much success, has he? In 2010, 2,092 companies were fined for employing illegal labour, but by 2012 that figure had almost halved to 1,215. Will he work with other Departments, not just to get a grip of illegal employment, but to tackle the abuse of zero-hours contracts and of the minimum wage, so that British workers are no longer undercut by cheap, illegal labour from abroad?

Mark Harper: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman listened to my answer. I acknowledged that the statistics had not been as good as we had hoped. I will take no lectures from somebody in the party that let immigration
	spiral out of control and that had no grip on the system. It is this Government who are getting a grip and who have seen net migration fall by more than a third.

Legal Highs

Stephen Mosley: What assessment she has made of the potential effects of incorporating legal highs in the scope of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Jeremy Browne: The Government have banned a significant number of so-called legal highs following expert advice, including two groups of drugs from today. That sends a clear message about their harms and gives law enforcement bodies more powers to take action. We continue closely to monitor new drugs through our early warning systems to inform our response.

Stephen Mosley: I welcome my hon. Friend’s response, especially given that my local council has spent two years prosecuting the sellers of an illegal high called Gogaine, which left a 17-year-old student in hospital suffering convulsions. The prosecution fell mainly because the product was labelled as harmful and not fit for human consumption. Will my hon. Friend commit regularly to review the list of legal highs to ensure that as new legal highs come on to the market, they can be banned immediately?

Jeremy Browne: I am aware of the extremely serious case in my hon. Friend’s constituency and we have received representations about it. I pay tribute to him for raising that harrowing example in the House. We actively monitor new substances and already control hundreds. We act rapidly to respond to new threats and continue to keep our response under review.

Graham Jones: Several constituents have approached me about the serious consequences of taking legal highs, including the famous Black Mamba. There seems to be no help or redress, and the Government do not seem to be helping the victims to prevent legal highs from getting into the hands of their friends or anybody else.

Jeremy Browne: The hon. Gentleman touches on an important point. When people talk about legal highs, there is a tendency to believe that just because a substance is legal, it cannot be harmful. That is certainly not the case, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley). That was a severe warning. The Government try to protect the public through appropriate changes to the law, including the two that I have mentioned, which take effect from today.

Child Sexual Exploitation

Ann Coffey: What training is undertaken by police forces in respect of child sexual exploitation cases.

Damian Green: All front-line police officers receive training in protecting and safeguarding children. Dedicated child protection police officers also receive specialist training
	in investigating child abuse cases, and the College of Policing is delivering additional training for front-line staff so that they can recognise, protect and refer children at risk of child sexual exploitation.

Ann Coffey: Children who are being sexually exploited are sometimes involved in antisocial behaviour, theft and other criminal offences. Often, the underlying problem is missed because the child is perceived to be an offender rather than a victim. Does the Minister agree that the training for all police officers should include an understanding of the behaviour associated with child sexual exploitation, including criminal behaviour, so that sexually exploited children are identified at an early age and police resources are used as effectively as possible?

Damian Green: The hon. Lady’s point about training is right and I mentioned training in my answer. I am sure she will welcome the fact that the College of Policing and the Crown Prosecution Service will shortly consult on a fundamental review of investigative guidance on child sex offences, precisely so that we can develop greater expertise and sensitivity throughout the system.

Nicola Blackwood: In the course of the inquiry by the Home Affairs Committee into grooming, one excuse that we heard for areas failing to tackle child sexual exploitation was that prosecution was difficult. Does the Minister agree that with forces in Lancashire and Oxford demonstrating that innovative investigative methods can be used successfully to back up witness testimony, there is no excuse for any police force failing to protect victims or to prosecute these depraved criminals?

Damian Green: I agree completely with my hon. Friend. I commend her and the rest of the Select Committee on the report that they produced today. She is right that one improvement, which needs to be extended, is in the capacity of the police to investigate and of prosecutors successfully to prosecute those who commit these disgusting crimes. A number of trials around the country have led to multiple convictions and I know that many more such cases are in the pipeline. I hope that sends a clear signal that this crime is absolutely unacceptable and that the police are getting better at rooting out those who commit it.

Asylum Seekers: Deportation

Stephen Phillips: What plans she has to speed up the deportation of those refused asylum in the UK.

Mark Harper: We want to continue to deport those who have no right to be in the United Kingdom, whether they are failed asylum seekers or foreign national offenders. Increased use of detained fast track and our national removals centre will reduce the risk of absconding, as well as being more successful in deporting people.

Stephen Phillips: One of the frustrations felt by all our constituents about the asylum and wider immigration system is the seemingly endless ways in which failed asylum seekers and immigrants are able to keep on appealing. I hope that the Minister and my right hon.
	Friend the Secretary of State will use the forthcoming immigration Bill to clamp down on the many rights of appeal.

Mark Harper: I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. and learned Friend that that is exactly what we are going to do. The immigration Bill plans to reduce the number of decisions it takes to remove someone who has no right to be in the country. Reducing the number of appeals will make the process easier and swifter.

Scottish Independence

Michael McCann: Whether Scots would be able to retain UK citizenship if Scotland became an independent country.

Theresa May: Decisions on UK citizenship are for the UK Government. Any decisions on the retention of UK citizenship by Scottish citizens after independence would be affected by future Scottish Government policy decisions. To date, the current Scottish Government have not set out what their proposed policies would be in these areas.

Michael McCann: I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s response, which will be noted by my constituent Colin White. Does she wish to take the opportunity to debunk the myth peddled only last week by high-profile Scottish National party supporter Jim McColl? He said that a vote for independence would mean that Scotland would remain a part of the United Kingdom.

Theresa May: I am happy to help the hon. Gentleman and debunk that myth. To be absolutely clear: a vote for independence is a vote for a Scotland that will be outside the United Kingdom. The referendum offers a fundamental choice between staying in the UK or leaving it and forming a new independent Scottish state. That is the legal reality of independence. As the Prime Minister said in Stirling on Friday:
	“There is simply no challenge we face today where breaking up Britain is the right answer.”
	The United Kingdom is stronger together and better together.

Pete Wishart: We just wish that the Prime Minister would come to Scotland much more often, because it increases support for independence. The right hon. Lady will know that after independence it will be possible to keep a UK passport. The real question is why, with a new dynamic Scotland in charge of its own resources and making its own peaceful contribution to the world, anybody would want anything other than a Scottish passport in Scotland.

Theresa May: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he thinks very carefully about what he has said, and perhaps looks at the Hansard record of it. As I made clear in answer to the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann), decisions about UK citizenship rest with the United Kingdom Government. However, if there is a vote in the referendum for separation, Scotland will become a separate state and not be part of
	the United Kingdom. That is a very simple fact and I suggest the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) recognises it.

Topical Questions

Andrew Bridgen: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Theresa May: This is my first opportunity to address the House on the dreadful events that took place on the streets of Woolwich on 22 May, and to offer in this House my deepest sympathies to the family and friends of Drummer Lee Rigby. This shocking and barbaric crime has been rightly condemned by all communities in our country. I would like to pay tribute to those brave civilians, police officers and medical staff involved in dealing with the incident; they represent the best of this nation. As I said at the time, this was not just an attack on an individual soldier, but an attack on everyone in this country—people of all faiths and of none.
	Sadly, in the aftermath of this horrific incident we have seen an increased number of attacks on mosques and Islamic centres. These are deplorable, disgusting acts. British Muslims make a valuable contribution to our society. The murder of Drummer Rigby was no more in their name than it was in mine or in the name of anybody in this Chamber. I welcome the extra steps taken by the Metropolitan police and others to counter this threat to them. Alongside the increased tensions, however, we have also seen some actions that give great cause for hope. We have seen leaders from all faiths condemn the attack. We have seen far-right supporters invited into a mosque to enjoy cups of tea and football. We have seen religious leaders from different faiths openly embracing each other in a show of unity. This House, like the whole country, stands united against violence, extremism and terror.

Andrew Bridgen: What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to prevent the abuse of free movement rights within the EU?

Theresa May: I have consistently raised the problem of the abuse of free movement at meetings of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, and we are working with other EU member states to curb that abuse. Free movement of persons is a long-standing principle of the EU, but those rights are not unlimited, and the Government take a robust approach against those who come to the UK not intending to work, but simply to rely on benefits. Abuse of free movement is not just a UK problem; it will take the joint efforts of all our EU partners to tackle it. We have been raising concerns for the past three years at meetings of EU Ministers, and I am pleased to say that last Friday it was decided that the European Commission and Ministers would take the issue forward.

Yvette Cooper: I welcome the Home Secretary’s condemnation of the vile attack on Drummer Lee Rigby and of the recent attacks on Islamic religious institutions. I also
	welcome her comments about the importance of protecting all our citizens and communities from hatred and of supporting hope instead.
	The Home Secretary will agree that the intelligence we get from abroad is vital to our national security and to protecting people against terrorism, but that it needs to be gathered under a clear legal framework with proper safeguards, checks and balances in place in order to maintain public confidence. In addition to the Foreign Secretary’s forthcoming statement, will she therefore respond on the issue of the legal framework operating for the Home Office? Will she tell us whether all Home Office, police and security service requests for intercept information from the internet, whether secured from UK agencies or from abroad, are governed by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and covered by ministerial warrants and the oversight of the intercept commissioner?

Theresa May: As the right hon. Lady said, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a statement shortly on this issue. She will also understand that it is a long-standing principle that the Government do not comment on intelligence matters, but I want to make it absolutely clear, as my right hon. Friend has also made clear, that at all times GCHQ has operated fully within a legal framework. I recognise that Parliament has a legitimate interest in these matters, which is why the Intelligence and Security Committee has a remit to look at such issues, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) has indicated that his Committee will indeed be conducting an urgent inquiry.

Yvette Cooper: I welcome the Home Secretary’s response, and clearly the House will listen to the Foreign Secretary’s statement shortly too. I understand that she cannot answer publicly about the content and detail of intelligence procurement, but will she set out very clearly what the legal framework is that governs Home Office and Home Office-related access to intercept and intelligence, and will she write to me setting out her understanding of the current legal framework? It would be very helpful. Will she also confirm that the ISC will have the full support of the Home Office and herself in accessing all the information it needs to pursue this issue? She will know that because intelligence is so important for our future and our national security, public confidence in it must be maintained.

Theresa May: As the right hon. Lady is aware, intercept warranty is covered by RIPA, and as I said, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will shortly make a statement about the legal framework under which the agencies operate. I suggest that she waits for that statement. I am clear that the ISC will have available to it the evidence it needs to conduct the inquiry, and it is right and proper that it does that. Of course, it has a new status in terms of its relationship with Parliament. I think people will want the Committee to conduct that inquiry, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, who chairs it, has indicated it will.

Simon Hart: What plans do the Government have to regulate covert surveillance by private investigators?

Damian Green: We are looking into the compulsory regulation of private investigators, which would apply to private investigators involved in covert surveillance. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that we expect to be in a position to make an announcement shortly.

Graham Stringer: Last year, the number of inspections to enforce the minimum wage fell to half what it was in the final year of the last Government. Why?

Mark Harper: That is really a matter for the Treasury, but I think I know where—[Interruption.] Let me just answer the question. I think I know where the hon. Gentleman is going with this. I have checked these matters carefully. If we compare the whole period of the last Labour Government, from when the national minimum wage was introduced, with the whole period of this Government, we can see that this Government have been prosecuting at a slightly faster rate. However, we are not doing it fast enough. We have set up a number of taskforces, including one in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), which is taking significant action on these matters and will continue to do so.

James Gray: Despite the 30% reduction in net migration since this Government came to power, people across North Wiltshire are extremely concerned about the whole issue of immigration, particularly with regard to Bulgaria and Romania later this year. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that people from Bulgaria and Romania in particular are not tempted here by the ability to avoid our tax system or, even worse, the ability to benefit from our benefits system?

Mark Harper: On Bulgaria and Romania, my hon. Friend will know that in the immigration Bill and elsewhere we have set out a number of changes that we are making to ensure that only people who are here exercising treaty rights—who are here working—can access the benefits system. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out some of those earlier. I hope my hon. Friend will see that tough and firm action continue.

Sheila Gilmore: I would like to press the Secretary of State a little further on the question of a landlord register. Does she agree that it might assist her in some of her other duties, such as in relation to antisocial behaviour? If she wants to see how a landlord register can be done as a self-financing system—and one that has worked very well—she should look no further than north of the border, where one was introduced by the Labour-Lib Dem coalition.

Mark Harper: I thought I would have a go this time. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State answered very well before, but I thought I would take a different tack, because it gives me an opportunity to say, as my right hon. Friend did, that we will bring forward proposals to ensure that landlords have to check the immigration status of tenants. I have had some good discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for
	Communities and Local Government. We will be bringing those steps forward, and I am confident they will be sensible, proportionate and effective.

Sarah Teather: Have Ministers checked whether the family migration rules are compliant with our obligations under the United Nations convention on the rights of the child?

Mark Harper: Yes, we are confident that they are. Last week I met the chair of the all-party group on migration, the noble Baroness Hamwee, to discuss the report. The Government will consider the recommendations in that report, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has set out clearly the objective of the family migration rules: to ensure that those who want to make their family life in the United Kingdom are able to support their families, rather than expecting the taxpayer to do so.

John Mann: Reductions in overdose deaths; reductions in in-patient A and E admissions for drug addicts; reductions in house burglary; increases in employment of drug addicts in treatment—on all these indicators, Bassetlaw is outperforming the rest of the country. Why?

Jeremy Browne: It must be because Bassetlaw has an outstandingly talented local MP, I assume. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw the House’s attention to the three strands of the Government’s strategy: reducing demand, restricting supply and building recovery. Great progress is being made on all three in Bassetlaw and elsewhere.

Stephen Phillips: My constituents are fed up with extremists and hate preachers such as Anjem Choudary receiving thousands of pounds of benefits. Will my right hon. Friend look at limiting those benefits?

Theresa May: It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the benefit position of an individual, but I regularly meet the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to discuss policy proposals on a range of issues. As the Prime Minister said to the House last week, we should do all we can to challenge poisonous ideologies. It is right that we look at all options, including whether it is possible to limit the right of individuals of concern to access straight benefits. We robustly challenge behaviours and views that run counter to our shared values, such as democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and the tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. When appropriate, we will use the full force of the law to challenge extremist activity.

Kevin Brennan: The issue of legal highs is difficult, because if we just ban them, another substance quickly springs up. Have the Government given any consideration to following the example of New Zealand and legislating to put the onus on the sellers of legal highs to prove they are safe?

Jeremy Browne: Those who study these matters closely, such as the hon. Gentleman and myself, will be familiar with the New Zealand model. It raises some interesting
	questions, which we are considering as part of our international case study. It is not without practical problems, however, and I do not think that it would provide an instant solution to our woes, but it is worthy of further consideration.

Mark Pritchard: Returning to Operation Alice, restoring public trust in the police and maintaining public trust in senior police officers is vital. Does the Minister therefore agree that there should be full disclosure of all the meetings between the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and the press relating to the operation?

Damian Green: As my hon. Friend might know, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has just responded to a freedom of information request on this matter. I can only repeat what I said before, which was that the course of justice is not served by my giving the House a running commentary on an ongoing criminal investigation.

Andrew Gwynne: The Home Secretary’s earlier response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) showed that she was completely oblivious to the steep increase in the use of community resolutions for ever more serious crimes, including domestic violence and knife crime. Does she not understand that the overuse of this simplistic measure gives rise to an issue of justice for the victims?

Theresa May: What I said to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), and what I say to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), is that we are looking at the use of community resolutions of various sorts to ensure that their use is proportionate and that there is consistency across the country. We are discussing the use of cautions with the police, and the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, in his capacity as a Minister in the Ministry of Justice, has launched a review of their use.

Henry Bellingham: Will the Minister meet the Attorney-General to discuss the issuing of strict instructions on the extent to which senior police officers may discuss active cases with journalists, so as to prevent prejudicial outcomes?

Damian Green: I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that I meet the Attorney-General on a regular basis to discuss a number of matters. I will of course continue to do so.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the Minister for completing the mop-up on question 5.

Jenny Chapman: On 6,000 occasions in the last year, the Met police used cautions for serious violent and sexual offences, including seven cases of rape. A caution obviously involves an admission of guilt, and there is huge concern about this. I have to say that the Secretary of State’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) seemed slightly flippant. She did not seem to understand the seriousness of the concerns. No one seems to understand
	why this is happening. What is the Home Secretary going to do to ensure that cautions are used only in appropriate circumstances?

Theresa May: I have not given any flippant response. What I said was that the Government were reviewing the issue. The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the whole question of the issue of cautions, and it is absolutely right that we should look not only at the numbers but at the evidence behind the way in which the cautions are being used and at the circumstances in which they are being used. That is what the review is about.

Dominic Raab: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, while net immigration quadrupled during the first 11 years of the previous Government, it has been brought down by 72,000 in just two years under this Government, despite the fact that the Opposition have fought us every step of the way?

Theresa May: I can absolutely confirm that. I am pleased to say that net migration has gone down by more than a third since this Government came into power. That is a result of our relentless work to deal with the lack of control in the immigration system under Labour, and it is a great pity that Labour Members have not been willing to support any of the measures that we have taken to ensure that immigration can come down.

Bridget Phillipson: Following today’s report from the Home Affairs Committee on child sexual exploitation and the response to localised grooming, will the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice set out what joint working will take place with colleagues in the Department for Education to ensure that we can prevent other young women from suffering the same horrific ordeal?

Damian Green: Yes; I have already read the report. It makes a number of important recommendations, which we will respond to fully in due course; and yes, joint working is happening between the Home Office and the Department for Education, the Department of Health and the Department for Communities and Local Government, as there are clearly a number of problems that need to be solved and they cross the governmental spectrum. We need to solve all of them before we can get a full grip on this issue.

Tessa Munt: The fee for a firearms or shotgun certificate for a new applicant is £50. That has not changed in 12 years, since 2001, but research shows that the cost to the taxpayer of granting such a licence is £189. Does the Minister agree that there is absolutely no case for subsidising those who wish to obtain those licences for recreation and leisure purposes, and that those individuals should be charged more?

Damian Green: I am conscious that the Association of Chief Police Officers has made representations about the cost of gun licences, and the Government are looking at the issue very carefully.

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, I call Grahame M. Morris.

Grahame Morris: I welcome reports that the Government intend to introduce stronger and clearer guidance on how the police should issue firearms licences, but may I point out to the Minister that following the multiple fatal shootings in my constituency on new year’s day 2010, ACPO, the coroner and the Independent Police Complaints Commission found that the police had not looked at the guidance?

Damian Green: I am sure they do. As the hon. Gentleman will know, I have met his constituent, Bobby Turnbull, and will do so again shortly. As the hon. Gentleman says, apart from the issue of the cost of licences, we are issuing completely new guidance, which we will do by the end of this year.

Bilderberg Conference

Michael Meacher: (Urgent Question):To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Bilderberg conference, which he attended.

Kenneth Clarke: This is a first occasion for me, as I have never previously answered a question in the House of Commons on behalf of a private organisation for which the Government have no responsibility. I have been a member of the steering committee of Bilderberg for many years now—about 10 years, I think—and by chance this will be my last year, as we have a rule against being on the committee for too long, so I am on the point of stepping down. [Interruption.]Other roles are timeless, with no rules at all, but in this role I have now reached the end of my allotted span.
	The Bilderberg organisation exists for the purpose of holding meetings once a year in various countries; it exists for no other purpose. This year, the meeting was held at a large hotel near Watford in Hertfordshire. I did not receive adequate notice of the right hon. Gentleman’s question—because I was not found in time—to put to hand the list of those who participated and the agenda we discussed. We always circulate those before the meeting, and they are readily available. I can certainly put any hon. Member in touch with a source of the list of those who took part.
	Each year, we invite something over 100 people—it was about 140 this year—drawn from both sides of the Atlantic; from Europe including Turkey, and from the United States and Canada. The people who attend are drawn from the worlds of government, politics, academia, defence and journalism. The people who attend change slightly each year. There is a core of those who attend regularly; different people come—[Interruption.] Well, I am trying to guess why on earth a parliamentary question has been asked about this and in what people are interested.
	All the people who attend do so as individuals; we invite people as individuals. Nobody attends representing any particular organisation to which they might belong. A very interesting two or three days take place in which we have discussions on matters of public affairs. A very wide range of experience and a very wide range of political opinion is represented. I always find that it greatly adds to the depth of my understanding of what is being talked about and contemplated in many parts of the United States and in Europe as well. It is one of the many political gatherings I attend from time to time as part of the background to my activities.
	If the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) finds something deeply disturbing in all this, I can advise only that he finds different people on the internet with whom to exchange tweets, and perhaps the House might be allowed to return to some matter of rather more real public interest in which this House of Commons has a role to play.

Michael Meacher: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that filibuster. The Bilderberg conference involves about 130 of the western world’s top decision
	makers from the banks, the multinational companies, the European Commission—
	[Interruption.] 
	I am coming to the politicians. It also involves representatives of the World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and, of course, leading politicians from the United States, Canada, the eurozone and the United Kingdom. Given that those people were clearly discussing some of the biggest issues confronting the western economies at this time, why have we heard no statement from the Prime Minister, the Chancellor or, indeed, the Minister without Portfolio, all of whom attended in an official capacity? Why did none of them offer a statement, although decisions of this kind may well have a significant effect on UK Government policy or the livelihood of future UK citizens?
	It is said by some, including the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that Bilderberg is a conspiracy. Of course it is not a conspiracy. Nevertheless, 130 of the world’s top decision makers do not travel thousands of miles simply for a cosy chat. Those people came here in order to concert their plans to deal with a particularly awkward stage in western capitalism, and in view of that we, the public, are entitled to ask some questions and to hold them to account. The Prime Minister said in 2010:
	“For too long those in power made decisions behind closed doors…and denied people the power to hold them to account. This coalition is driving a wrecking ball through that culture—and it’s called transparency.”
	In the same year, the Chancellor himself announced his commitment to
	“the most radical transparency agenda that the country has ever seen.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 206.]
	So why is there no transparency about a very crucial meeting that could affect us all?
	Finally, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how at the start of last week the Prime Minister could announce a crackdown on corruption and lack of transparency among lobbyists, and by the end of the week he and the Chancellor could be insisting that the largest and most powerful lobbyists’ group in the western hemisphere—an anti-democratic cabal if ever there was one—should operate in conditions of utter blackout and complete secrecy?

Kenneth Clarke: The Bilderberg meeting does not make any decisions. It does not have any resolutions. We could not possibly reach decisions, because of the range of opinions represented there. It is purely a Chatham House rules discussion between the people to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred. The shadow Chancellor was there, Peter Mandelson was there, the Prime Minister was there, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was there, and most of us said things during the discussion that would not have come as a surprise to any of us, because we knew what our opinions were. We go there for the chance of having an off-the-record, informal discussion with the range of people described by the right hon. Gentleman, who are indeed distinguished, but who are not remotely interested in getting together to decide or organise anything.
	If the right hon. Gentleman would like an invitation—if that is what really lies behind his question—I will take his own distinguished claims to participation in the group carefully into account, although I will of course consult the shadow Chancellor before taking that a step further.
	Let me say with the greatest respect that this is total, utter nonsense. I would normally regard the right hon. Gentleman as not the sort of person to be taken in by this sort of rubbish. We all take part in lots of political and other discussions as private individuals, under Chatham House rules, and we do not expect everyone to go out giving a version of what we have just said. No one alters their opinions when we are there. As for transparency, this Government are by a street the most transparent Government I have ever been in, but we can only be transparent in regard to things for which the Government have responsibility, and for what we are doing as a Government.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister without Portfolio said, rather prosaically I thought, that Peter Mandelson was there. I assume he was referring to no less a figure than Lord Mandelson of Foy. I think that is the person he had in mind.

Kenneth Clarke: No, we all attend extremely informally; we are not there in any capacity.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister can resume his seat. No one in the House has a better sense of humour than the Minister, but I thought that he realised that I was gently teasing him.

Tony Baldry: Is it not rather cruel to oblige the Prime Minister to spend a weekend with Lord Mandelson of Foy and the shadow Chancellor? Did anyone at the Bilderberg conference go away any the wiser as to how the Labour party, if it were to win the next general election, would square the circle and manage to tackle the deficit?

Kenneth Clarke: I can only hope that some people did, but Chatham House rules prevent me from offering any further opinion on that question.

Edward Balls: The idea of Lord Mandelson attending any meeting informally is not something I have ever experienced.
	As one of the British parliamentarians who attended the weekend meeting in Watford, alongside the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, Lord Mandelson, Baroness Williams and the Minister without Portfolio himself, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he agrees that it is important that Ministers and shadow Ministers meet regularly to discuss important issues with fellow Ministers and Opposition politicians, academics, journalists and business leaders from around the world? Can he confirm that over the past 60 years the annual Bilderberg meeting has properly been attended by Prime Ministers, Chancellors and shadow Ministers from all parties, including Lord Healey, Lord Ashdown and the late John Smith?
	Does the Minister without Portfolio agree that it is welcome that the Bilderberg group now publishes a list of all those who attend the meeting and the topics that are discussed? Does he agree that the list of topics on this weekend's agenda, including “Can the US and Europe grow faster and create jobs?”, “Africa's challenges”, “Trends in medical research” and “Developments in the
	middle east” are vital issues which every Government and Opposition must grapple with for the benefit of all citizens?
	We fully understand that it is because the Minister without Portfolio is a member of the Bilderberg steering group that he is well qualified today to answer the urgent question that was addressed to the Chancellor; he is not doing so because of his economic expertise. If on the other hand the Minister without Portfolio were to stand in at the next Treasury questions, we and all conspiracy theorists would rightly be concerned.

Kenneth Clarke: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for perhaps addressing the question more straightforwardly than I did. He is obviously feeling a little defensive. He is dealing with it a little more seriously and probably much more wisely than I did. Everything he said is entirely right. I have attended Bilderberg meetings for many years. The only reason I attend is that my own understanding of political and economic problems in various parts of the world is improved by the opportunity to have an informal weekend with the kind of people who go to the conference. Discussing things with, among others, the shadow Chancellor in a completely informal way, off the record, is also of considerable value. I am sure that he agrees that we derive a great deal from the meeting and we hope that it improves our contribution to debates here, too.

Mark Reckless: Our hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) was invited to a previous Bilderberg conference, and I wonder whether the Minister, as a member of the steering committee, could tell us why he has been dropped. Has he done something wrong?

Kenneth Clarke: Every year, about half those participating have never been before. Quite a lot of people come only for one meeting. The number of people who come every year is comparatively small—there is a kind of core and for some extraordinary reason I have been a part of that core over the past decade. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) made a most distinguished contribution but he should not be disappointed that he was not invited again. The British committee was trying to bring in a rising star of a younger generation, because we do not want the whole thing to become an ageing establishment of people who used to be something important in government. I have no doubt that one day my hon. Friend will be implored to attend again, but I cannot guarantee when that will be.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Dennis Skinner.

Hon. Members: Have you been there, Dennis?

Dennis Skinner: I wouldn’t be seen dead with them.
	How come when all those media moguls, the bankers and politicians have been meeting together since 1954, not one of them was able to spot the recession coming—or maybe they caused it?

Kenneth Clarke: We have had trade unions there sometimes, and there are plenty of social democrats. I do not think anybody as left wing as the hon. Gentleman has ever
	attended, but if I scratch my memory I will probably remember somebody. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman forecast with absolute precision the collapse of capitalism in 2007. In that respect, I agree that his foresight was rather better than that of most pundits. We continue to meet, in the hope that next time we will see it coming with slightly more clarity.

John Redwood: As many UKIP voters fear that the Bilderberg group is a plot to promote more unaccountable European government, can my right hon. and learned Friend give them any reassurance or suggest why they might be wrong in that thought?

Kenneth Clarke: Nowadays we get accused of plots to establish a Government of the world, to poison the local watercourses, and to plan an invasion of the United States of America. Ten years ago, I was told I was attending a plot to hand over Britain to Brussels and to subordinate us to a “United States of Europe”, and the next instalment of the plot will come later. I cite that example in order to point out that a fellow member of the steering committee was Mr Conrad Black, and in private, as in public, Mr Conrad Black was not in favour of handing anything over to Brussels and was not in any way furthering that cause. I regret to say that Mr Black is, as I recall, the only member who ever attended who has since had the misfortune to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, whereupon he withdrew from the Bilderberg meetings.
	Seriously, however, I assure my right hon. Friend that the full range of opinion from left to right from across western Europe is pretty well represented at Bilderberg. That in itself shows that the idea that we are furthering any kind of agenda is absolute nonsense. If I were plotting to do anything, I would not assemble that particular group of people, because we would never agree on an objective.

Tom Watson: Can the Minister confirm that he declared his trusteeship of the body that funds the conference to his permanent secretary when he was appointed by the Prime Minister?

Kenneth Clarke: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. I am looking that up, because I had forgotten. Actually, I am a member of the steering committee. When we were hosting at Watford, I discovered that I am, among other things, a trustee of the British steering group, so I am checking, with the aid of my constituency office, whether I ever put that in. I assure the hon. Gentleman
	that I had completely forgotten that it was set up on that basis, long before the rules were established. The trustees have never met as trustees. All I actually do is sit as a member of a committee and play my part in helping with the organisation of a meeting, and that is all I have ever done.

Edward Leigh: We have had a bit of fun today—indeed, who would want to spend a weekend of irredeemable tedium discussing world economics with a bunch of establishment toffs? Surely the serious point is this, however: why on earth does the House of Commons think it is necessary to discuss what was said in a private meeting?

Kenneth Clarke: Perhaps my hon. Friend was not here when I started answering this question and said that this is the first time I have ever risen in the House of Commons to answer questions on behalf of a private organisation for which the British Government have absolutely no responsibility.

Philip Davies: I know I cannot be described as a rising star, so should I not presume that my invitation was lost in the post? Can the Minister say whether or not, either formally or informally, he took the opportunity while at the conference to discuss his campaign to keep the UK within the European Union, and which members of the EU were there?

Kenneth Clarke: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I do not think I am being too indiscreet when I say that the subject of the future of the European Union and Britain’s participation in it did come up from time to time over the weekend. People from many countries have quite a strong interest in that subject, so it was discussed, but under Chatham House rules, and I can assure him that no conclusions of any kind were reached.

Philip Hollobone: Is my right hon. and learned Friend the only British citizen on the steering committee, and who does he think his replacement will be?

Kenneth Clarke: The other members at the moment are John Kerr and Marcus Agius, and I do not know who my successor will be. We are slightly overrepresented on the steering committee, which is probably a reflection of the quality of debate in this place and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the matters have been fairly fully explored.

GCHQ

William Hague: With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement on the work of the Government Communications Headquarters—GCHQ—its legal framework and recent publicity about it. As Foreign Secretary, I am responsible for the work of GCHQ and the Secret Intelligence Service—MI6—under the overall authority of the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is responsible for the work of the Security Service, MI5.
	Over the past few days, there have been a series of media disclosures of classified US documents relating to the collection of intelligence by US agencies, and questions about the role of GCHQ. The US Administration have begun a review into the circumstances of these leaks in conjunction with the Justice Department and the US intelligence community. President Obama has been clear that US work in this area is fully overseen and authorised by Congress and relevant judicial bodies, and that his Administration are committed to respecting the civil liberties and privacy of their citizens.
	The Government deplore the leaking of any classified information, wherever it occurs. Such leaks can make the work of maintaining the security of our own country and that of our allies more difficult, and by providing a partial and potentially misleading picture they give rise to public concerns. It has been the policy of successive British Governments not to comment on the detail of intelligence operations. The House will therefore understand that I will not be drawn into confirming or denying any aspect of leaked information. I will be as informative as possible, to give reassurance to the public and Parliament. We want the British people to have confidence in the work of our intelligence agencies, and in their adherence to the law and democratic values, but I also wish to be very clear that I will take great care in this statement and in answering questions to say nothing that gives any clue or comfort to terrorists, criminals and foreign intelligence services as they seek to do harm to this country and its people.
	Three issues have arisen in recent days which I wish to address. First, I will describe the action that the Government are taking in response to recent events. Secondly, I will set out how our intelligence agencies work in accordance with UK law and subject to democratic oversight. Thirdly, I will describe how the law is upheld with respect to intelligence co-operation with the United States, and deal with specific questions that have been raised about the work of GCHQ.
	First, in respect of the action we have taken, the Intelligence and Security Committee has already received some information from GCHQ and will receive a full report tomorrow. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), who chairs the Intelligence and Security Committee, is travelling to the United States on a long-planned visit with the rest of the Committee. As he has said, the Committee will be free to decide what, if any, further action it should take in the light of that report. The Government and the agencies will co-operate fully with the Committee, and I pay tribute to its members and their predecessors from all parties.
	Secondly, the ISC’s work is one part of the strong framework of democratic accountability and oversight that governs the use of secret intelligence in the United Kingdom, which successive Governments have worked to strengthen. At its heart are two Acts of Parliament: the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
	The Acts require GCHQ and the other agencies to seek authorisation for their operations from a Secretary of State, normally the Foreign Secretary or Home Secretary. As Foreign Secretary, I receive hundreds of operational proposals from the SIS and GCHQ every year. The proposals are detailed: they set out the planned operation, the potential risks and the intended benefits of the intelligence. They include comprehensive legal advice describing the basis for the operation, and comments from senior Foreign Office officials and lawyers. To intercept the content of any individual’s communications in the UK requires a warrant signed personally by me, the Home Secretary, or by another Secretary of State. This is no casual process. Every decision is based on extensive legal and policy advice. Warrants are legally required to be necessary, proportionate and carefully targeted, and we judge them on that basis.
	Considerations of privacy are also at the forefront of our minds, as I believe they will have been in the minds of our predecessors. We take great care to balance individual privacy with our duty to safeguard the public and the UK’s national security. These are often difficult and finely judged decisions, and we do not approve every proposal put before us by the agencies. All the authorisations that the Home Secretary and I give are subject to independent review by an Intelligence Services Commissioner and an Interception of Communications Commissioner, both of whom must have held high judicial office and report directly to the Prime Minister. They review the way these decisions are made to ensure that they are fully compliant with the law. They have full access to all the information that they need to carry out their responsibilities, and their reports are publicly available. It is vital that we have that framework of democratic accountability and scrutiny.
	I have nothing but praise for the professionalism, dedication and integrity of the men and women of GCHQ. I know from my work with them how seriously they take their obligations under UK and international law. Indeed, in his most recent report, the Interception of Communications Commissioner said:
	“it is my belief…that GCHQ staff conduct themselves with the highest levels of integrity and legal compliance.”
	This combination of needing a warrant from one of the most senior members of the Government, decided on the basis of detailed legal advice, and such decisions being reviewed by independent commissioners and implemented by agencies with strong legal and ethical frameworks, with the addition of parliamentary scrutiny by the ISC, whose powers are being increased, provides one of the strongest systems of checks and balances and democratic accountability for secret intelligence anywhere in the world.
	Thirdly, I want to set out how UK law is upheld in respect of information received from the United States, and to address the specific questions about the role of GCHQ. Since the 1940s, GCHQ and its American equivalents—now the National Security Agency—have had a relationship that is unique in the world. This
	relationship has been and remains essential to the security of both nations, has stopped many terrorist and espionage plots against this country, and has saved many lives. The basic principles by which that co-operation operates have not changed over time. Indeed, I wish to emphasise to the House that although we have experienced an extremely busy period in intelligence and diplomacy in the past three years, the arrangements for oversight, and the general framework for exchanging information with the United States, are the same as under previous Governments. The growing and diffuse nature of threats from terrorists, criminals or espionage has only increased the importance of our intelligence relationship with the United States. That was particularly the case in the run-up to the Olympics. The House will not be surprised to hear that our activity to counter terrorism intensified and rose to a peak in the summer of last year.
	It has been suggested that GCHQ uses our partnership with the United States to get around UK law, obtaining information that it cannot legally obtain in the United Kingdom. I wish to be absolutely clear that that accusation is baseless. Any data obtained by us from the United States involving UK nationals are subject to proper UK statutory controls and safeguards, including the relevant sections of the Intelligence Services Act, the Human Rights Act 1998, and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.
	Our intelligence-sharing work with the United States is subject to ministerial and independent oversight, and to scrutiny by the Intelligence and Security Committee. Our agencies practise and uphold UK law at all times, even when dealing with information from outside the United Kingdom. The combination of a robust legal framework, ministerial responsibility, scrutiny by the intelligence services commissioners, and parliamentary accountability through the Intelligence and Security Committee should give a high level of confidence that the system works as intended.
	That does not mean that we do not have to work to strengthen public confidence whenever we can, while maintaining the secrecy necessary to intelligence work. We have strengthened the role of the ISC through the Justice and Security Act 2013, to include oversight of the agencies’ operations as well as their policy, administration and finances. We have introduced the National Security Council so that intelligence is weighed and assessed alongside all other sources of information available to the Government, including diplomatic reporting and the insights of other Government Departments, and all that information is judged carefully in deciding the Government’s overall strategy and objectives.
	There is no doubt that secret intelligence, including the work of GCHQ, is vital to our country. It enables us to detect threats against our country ranging from nuclear proliferation to cyber attack. Our agencies work to prevent serious and organised crime, and to protect our economy against those trying to steal our intellectual property. They disrupt complex plots against our country, such as when individuals travel abroad to gain terrorist training and prepare attacks. They support the work of our armed forces overseas and help to protect the lives of our men and women in uniform, and they work to help other countries lawfully to build the capacity and willingness to investigate and disrupt terrorists in their countries, before threats reach us in the United Kingdom.
	We should never forget that threats are launched at us secretly, new weapons systems and tactics are developed secretly, and countries or terrorist groups that plan attacks or operations against us do so in secrecy. So the methods we use to combat these threats must be secret, just as they must always be lawful. If the citizens of this country could see the time and care taken in making these decisions, the carefully targeted nature of all our interventions, and the strict controls in place to ensure that the law and our democratic values are upheld, and if they could witness, as I do, the integrity and professionalism of the men and women of our intelligence agencies, who are among our nation’s very finest public servants, I believe they would be reassured by how we go about this essential work.
	The British people can be confident in the way our agencies work to keep them safe. Would-be terrorists, those seeking to spy against this country or those who are the centre of organised crime should be aware that this country has the capability and partnerships to protect its citizens against the full range of threats in the 21st century, and that we will always do so in accordance with our laws and values, but with constant resolve and determination.

Douglas Alexander: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it this afternoon. The House will be aware that on Saturday the Opposition, along with other Members of this House, called for the Foreign Secretary to address Parliament today, and we welcome his decision to do so in recognition of the depth of public concern that has arisen in recent days.
	I begin my remarks by echoing the words of the Foreign Secretary and put on record the support and admiration of the whole House for the important—indeed, vital—work that is done by our country’s intelligence and security services. Theirs is some of the most important but inevitably least recognised work undertaken to protect the security of our nation, and it is right that we take the opportunity to offer our thanks and praise for their efforts. Our intelligence agencies’ work would be made more difficult if levels of concern about the framework under which they operate were to compromise the active support of the public for their efforts. In light of that, I shall quote back to the Foreign Secretary his words in a BBC interview yesterday:
	“if you are a law abiding citizen of this country going about your business and your personal life, you have nothing to fear—nothing to fear about the British state or intelligence agencies listening to the contents of your phone calls or anything like that.”
	This assertion, however, assumes that the state is either incapable of error or incapable of advertent or inadvertent wrongdoing.
	Surely, on reflection, the Foreign Secretary will accept that law-abiding citizens of this country also want to know and be assured of the fact that the agencies of government are themselves law-abiding. Back in 2011, the Foreign Secretary seemed to recognise the importance of this point when in a speech on the role of the Security Services he said:
	“the need for secrecy places additional importance on the Foreign Secretary’s accountability to Parliament for GCHQ and SIS. This is one of the indispensable foundations of public confidence, and one that I will personally strive to strengthen.”
	Today presents him with a clear opportunity to deliver on that pledge, and I hope that in his answers to my specific questions he will be able to do so.
	The Foreign Secretary is right to assume that lawyers, some law-makers and the members of the ISC may be very familiar with the framework of legality and accountability, but the general public, for understandable reasons, are not. In light of that, will he take the opportunity of his response to remind the House of the steps we in Parliament have taken to preserve privacy, and set out whether all steps taken by our agencies are, to the best of his knowledge, compliant with those laws? It is in this spirit, not of condemnation but of concern, that I would like to ask the Foreign Secretary some questions about the recent allegations first revealed by The Guardian on Friday of last week about the existence and operation of the so-called Prism programme administered by the NSA.
	Let me first make it clear that the Opposition support the principle of information sharing across international borders with allies. Indeed, the people who want to do harm to the UK work across international borders, and those people working to keep us safe have to be able to work with allies across international borders if they are to tackle these threats effectively. But that needs to be within that established framework of both law and accountability. The Foreign Secretary is right to say that full disclosure on this issue is not possible nor appropriate, so let me focus my questions not on the specific operational aspect of the allegations, but on the broader legal and policy frameworks that would apply in these circumstances.
	Earlier this morning, the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), gave his account of the legal framework that would govern British intelligence agencies’ use of intercept data. He said:
	“If the British intelligence agencies are seeking to know the content of emails about people living in the UK then they actually have to get lawful authority. Normally that means ministerial authority. That applies equally whether they are going to do the intercept themselves or whether they are going to ask somebody else to do it on their behalf.”
	Will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether that account of the current legal framework is both complete and accurate?
	In his statement, the Foreign Secretary has just stated: “Any data obtained by us from the United States involving UK nationals are subject to proper UK statutory controls and safeguards, including the relevant sections of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.” Will he now set out the relevant sections of those Acts, and confirm whether this explanation means that any data obtained by us from the US, involving UK nationals, are authorised by ministerial warrants and overseen by the intercept commissioner, as set out by RIPA?
	Specifically, what legal framework applies in the following two cases? First, when a request is made by the UK to an intelligence agency of an international ally for the interception of the content of private communications, will he confirm whether this process is governed by individual warrants signed by the relevant Secretary of State and approved by the intercept commissioner as set
	out in part I of RIPA? Secondly, will he address the specific issue of when a request is made by the UK to an intelligence agency of an international ally, not to seek intercept, but instead to search existing data held by that agency on the contents of private communications, and, in particular, the legal process that will be adopted in such an instance? In that circumstance, will he confirm whether this process is also governed by individual warrants signed by the relevant Secretary of State and approved by the intercept commissioner as set out in part I of RIPA?
	Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that, with respect to intelligence sharing with allies, the UK Government operate on the basis of the assumption that information held by, for example, the US Government, has been obtained in accordance with the law of that country? If that is the case, what steps he has he taken, or will take, to confirm that any processes currently in use by the NSA continue to adhere to this legal safeguard?

Mr Speaker: Order. The shadow Foreign Secretary has now exceeded his allotted time, so I feel sure that he is in his last sentence.

Douglas Alexander: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	To conclude, all of us in this House have an interest in sustaining public confidence in the work of the intelligence agencies. Those agencies, each and every day, do outstanding work on behalf of and for the sake of us all. That is why Ministers and the ISC now have a heavy burden of responsibility to oversee and scrutinise their work, so as to reassure the public.

William Hague: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and pleased that he began his remarks by expressing the support and admiration across the House for the work of the intelligence agencies. Many former Ministers from the previous Government—indeed, there are some specific ones here today—know that well. He was right to say that the work of those agencies is among the most important and least recognised that goes into protecting this country, so there is strong common ground across the House on that.
	The right hon. Gentleman said that we should be able, now and in future, to give people assurances about the law-abiding nature of the work of the agencies, which of course is a large part of the purpose of what I have just explained to the House. I am not saying that the agencies, anyone who works in them or, indeed, Ministers are incapable of error—that can happen in any organisation—but I am arguing that there is a strong system of checks and balances. A combination of ministerial oversight, independent scrutiny, parliamentary oversight, the legal framework and the strong ethical framework of the agencies themselves minimises the chance of errors happening in any sinister way.
	Sometimes people can get the impression, when reading discussions in the media about this, that there is a danger of a “deep state” that is in some way out of control. There is not that danger in the United Kingdom. Of course everyone is capable of error, but the protection of this country’s citizens from such error is very strong indeed. I must stress that there will always be ways of improving procedures—many improvements have been made in recent years, under successive Administrations—and there are always new situations that arise in intelligence
	gathering that require additions to or the refinement of the legal basis of what we do and the practices and procedures by which we do that work. I do not argue at all that everything is definitely perfect, and certainly not for all time, with regard to whether in future there could be any improvements in procedures in some areas, because I am sure that there could be. The Intelligence and Security Committee will be able to look at that and make recommendations if it so wishes, and of course within the Government that is something that is constantly looked at and subject to change.
	The right hon. Gentleman is right that there is no reason why the general public would be familiar with the framework I have set out for the House. I was the first Foreign Secretary to make a speech, in November 2011—it might have been widely unnoticed in the House—about the role of secret intelligence in foreign policy, in which I set out for the public what the guarantees are and what the legal framework is. This, in a way, is an opportunity to set that out clearly to the country.
	The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that he supports information sharing with our allies. The position on the legal framework is exactly as I set out in my statement: any data obtained by us from the United States about UK nationals are subject to the full range of Acts, including section 3 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the RIPA provisions, set out in sections 15 and 16, which regulate that information gathering must be necessary and proportionate and regulate how the agencies must handle information when they obtain it.
	On the right hon. Gentleman’s further questions about how authority is given, I cannot give him, for reasons that I cannot explain in public, as detailed an answer as he would like. I would love to give him what could actually be a very helpful answer, but because circumstances and procedures vary according to the situation, I do not want to give a categorical answer—in a small respect circumstances might differ occasionally. But I can say that ministerial oversight and independent scrutiny is there, and there is scrutiny of the ISC in all these situations, so, again, the idea that operations are carried out without ministerial oversight, somehow getting around UK law, is mistaken. I am afraid that I cannot be more specific than that.

David Davis: Nobody in this House, and certainly not me, would dispute the value of well-targeted intelligence. Central to this issue are the US FISA—Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act—laws, which distinguish between American citizens, who receive rigorous protection of their privacy, and all other foreigners, including British citizens, who receive, in essence, no protection. When the Americans are concerned about assaults on their citizens, they pursue this with an aggression that would make Lord Palmerston proud, most obviously through the extradition arrangements, for example. Has the Foreign Secretary made any representations to the American authorities about the protection of innocent British citizens’ privacy under their FISA laws?

William Hague: We apply our own laws. The United States decides its own laws and applies its own laws in the United States. We do so in the United Kingdom as well. That is the central point that I am making about this. All the Acts that we have passed in this Parliament relating to the gathering of intelligence are applied to
	data supplied from other countries. While I cannot give my right hon. Friend a specific answer about specific discussions, of course we regularly discuss with the United States the framework for these things to make sure, as best we can, that our values and our legal frameworks are upheld and that the strong emphasis on the privacy of the citizen is always there. As he will have seen in the statements of President Obama, the United States is very, very tough about that as well. When the UK and US both work together, each with a strong legal framework, the combined effect is a very strong and protective one.

Jack Straw: Does the Secretary of State accept that many of our allies, leaving aside the United States, are astonished by the degree of control and supervision of our system of ministerial oversight, oversight by judicially qualified commissioners and oversight by the ISC, which surpasses that of most other western democracies?
	Does Secretary of State also accept that those in the agencies face an impossible dilemma? When things are relatively calm, suspicions, fantasies and sometimes paranoia can take off about the so-called secret state, but the moment there is a serious threat or actual terrorist outrage, often the very same people and newspapers turn on a sixpence and demand to know not whether the safeguards were operated but why there has been a failure by the agencies to track, through intelligence of all kinds, the miscreants involved.

William Hague: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; as a former Foreign Secretary he is very experienced in these matters. I argued in my statement that, as he knows very well, the system of checks and balances and scrutiny that we have is among the strongest in the world; it could be the strongest in the world. Yes, he is right that the agencies easily come in for criticism when anything goes wrong and yet have to ensure at all times that they are gathering all the information they ought to be obtaining. They undertake a task for which they are not thanked and recognised often enough. They have achieved a great deal in frustrating attacks on this country, including, in recent years, planned terrorist attacks on this country, some of which we cannot talk about as they are not known to the public. It is therefore difficult to give them the recognition that they deserve. That is the scale and the importance of this crucial work.

Martin Horwood: I declare a strong constituency interest.
	Veterans of Bletchley park, like my own parents, were and are widely described as heroes for the secret victories that we can now talk about, they having kept their secrets for many decades. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that GCHQ, as Bletchley’s successor, does equally vital but equally secret work, and that hon. Members might have to exercise just a fraction of that kind of self-restraint in allowing some of the perfectly legitimate questions about Prism to be answered in private to elected members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which we have set up for precisely this purpose?

William Hague: My hon. Friend has spoken well about GCHQ and the work of his constituents, which he and I both greatly admire. Of course, the Intelligence
	and Security Committee is able to look at any aspects, including secret and top secret ones, of this discussion. The ISC, for those outside the House who may not be aware of it, is a cross-party Committee of Members who are already very familiar with so many of the issues surrounding secret intelligence. That is the proper place for these issues to be gone into in detail. I am sure this House will show the necessary restraint in its questions and comments, and that they will be fitting for today’s discussion about secret intelligence.

David Blunkett: May I reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) has said and confirm from my own experience what the Foreign Secretary has said about the legal and ethical framework and the safeguards? I know that to be true, and it is from that background that I ask this simple question. Yes, we need to dampen down fear and reinforce the fact that we are engaging with international cyber-attack and the dangers of international global terrorism; but, in reassuring people about how we handle their data, could we take a closer look at how other agencies, including the NSA and our friends and colleagues in the United States, use material gathered from network and service providers and offer it, rather than having it sought from them, in a way that makes authorisation extremely difficult?

William Hague: Like the right hon. Member for Blackburn, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) speaks from his own experience of the highly professional work of the agencies. The point he raises reinforces the importance of our agencies applying and upholding the laws of the United Kingdom regarding the data they obtain from other intelligence agencies around the world. As I said earlier to the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), there may well be occasions over the coming years when we will need to update and improve those procedures, to take account of changes in technology. I do not exclude that at all, but it re-emphasises the importance of applying our law in our country, which the agencies can be relied on to do.

Nicholas Soames: People will have great confidence in hearing what my right hon. Friend has said about requests for intercept and operations in this country having to be so very rigorous. Does he also agree that the highly complex nature of modern communications inevitably means that, from time to time, privacy may have to be breached in the interests of the security of our country and its people?

William Hague: Yes, of course: a would-be terrorist cannot rely on their privacy and nor can someone at the centre of organised crime. It is these decisions that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I and, sometimes, other colleagues have to make. We take extra steps and extra care on privacy. The law explicitly requires us to make sure that our actions are necessary, proportionate and targeted, but we go beyond those requirements in assessing the impact on the privacy of individuals in order to try to make sure that it is only when absolutely necessary that we invade that privacy.

Diana Johnson: One of the key motivations for the reform of the Intelligence and Security Committee was to help with transparency and to engage with the public and give confidence. Can the Foreign Secretary say whether any ISC report on Prism will be published, containing redactions that are as limited as possible?

William Hague: I cannot give an assurance that reports on these issues will be public because, as I argued in my statement, there is an important role for secret intelligence. Our deliberations about that must therefore be secret. The ISC makes a variety of reports, some of which are published and redacted, as the hon. Lady says. The ISC will have to consider the format of its report, but I cannot guarantee that its findings will be public.

Gerald Howarth: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on an excellent statement to the House in which the British people should have every confidence. Does he agree that, notwithstanding the reservations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), the protection of the British people relies hugely on co-operation between the United Kingdom and the United States? Both countries face threats from China. In that regard, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has any comments to make to the House about the illuminating report by the Intelligence and Security Committee last week?

William Hague: I am largely grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and for his strong support for the Government’s position. He is right to underline the extreme importance to our national security of our close and unique co-operation with the United States. It has been my general approach, as he knows, not to publicly point fingers or fling accusations at other countries about intelligence activities. Despite his tempting invitation, I will not do so today.

Paul Murphy: As a former chair of the ISC, I have nothing but admiration for the work of GCHQ. The Foreign Secretary agrees that the ISC should investigate the allegations. Will he encourage the ISC to report swiftly to the Prime Minister, as is its custom, and then, if it is possible within the constraints of national security, to report to the House of Commons?

William Hague: The ISC should of course report to the Prime Minister. I do not want to pre-empt any decision that the Committee or the Prime Minister may make about the nature of any reporting to the public or to Parliament. I reiterate the cautionary words that I issued a moment ago. I am sure that the Committee will want to undertake its work swiftly, but only as swiftly as proper consideration of all the issues allows. We all want it to consider such questions thoroughly. That is the most important requirement.

Rehman Chishti: I very much welcome the statement by the Foreign Secretary. On the sharing of intelligence by GCHQ, will he clarify whether the United Kingdom provides location intelligence to the United States in relation to drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

William Hague: As I explained in my statement, successive Governments have not commented on the details of how we use intelligence information. My statement was about the legal framework that governs such matters and the values that we uphold. I cannot and will not comment on what intelligence we share with other countries.

Ben Bradshaw: Given the rather different approaches to privacy and data protection in Europe and the United States, what assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the potential for this controversy to impact on the successful outcome of the EU-America free trade deal, and what are the Government doing to prevent it from having such an impact?

William Hague: I have no evidence of any such impact. Over the coming days, the Government and our European partners will be putting great effort into ensuring that rapid progress is made on a transatlantic trade and investment partnership. I see no reason why the questions raised in the media over the past few days should have a significant impact on that.

Peter Bone: The Foreign Secretary was right to say that in democracies, it is important that some things are kept secret. However, it is equally important that Members of this House are free to have discussions without fear of interception by the Government. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that no Member is having his phone tapped or his e-mails intercepted?

William Hague: There is a long-standing convention, named after a former Labour Prime Minister, which has always been upheld, so my hon. Friend and Mrs Bone can be assured of that.

William McCrea: Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the Security Services have all the necessary tools to keep our citizens safe, even though at times that may mean the sacrifice of personal freedoms?

William Hague: They do have the tools. I said earlier that those tools need updating over time. I did not refer in my statement to the discussions on a communications data Bill, but there is a strong case for updating the tools we have at our disposal. Means of communication are changing more rapidly than at any time in the history of the world, which means that the range and nature of threats change. We must be careful to do that work, and the whole House should give fair consideration to such proposals.

John Glen: My right hon. Friend has confirmed that the Government and the intelligence services have no interest in random snooping into the private affairs of British citizens, but can he confirm to the House that, when well-founded security risks are identified, sufficient powers and freedoms are in place to undertake the investigations that may be necessary, or is it his opinion that enhanced freedoms and powers are now required?

William Hague: In my experience, we are well-equipped to conduct necessary investigations, but I return to the answer I gave to the previous question. There will be a
	constant need to update what we are able to do, without being diverted from the basic principle of ensuring that our intelligence gathering is on what is necessary, and that it is proportionate, targeted and always legal. Our laws do not provide for indiscriminate trawling for information through the contents of people’s communications. We do not need to change those basic principles, but we sometimes need to change aspects of the legal framework and where we are able to get information from. That work must go on in the coming years.

David Winnick: Considering all the dangers for the individual concerned, why should we believe that the American whistleblower is telling a pack of lies? If a lot of what he is saying is true, then surely law-abiding citizens who are a million miles from any threat involved with terrorism should indeed be fearful.

William Hague: As you will have noticed, Mr Speaker, I have not commented on the individual concerned. I am not going to get into a running commentary on this or any other leak. It is not possible for any Government to do that while respecting the need to maintain the secrecy of our intelligence work. I do not want to get into that now, but I stress again the very strong legal framework in this country. I believe people can have confidence in that.

Henry Bellingham: All our constituents should be grateful for the work of the Security Services, and some will owe their lives to their professionalism. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that one of the biggest threats to our national security is stolen identities? Surely GCHQ has to be ever more innovative to stay one step in front.

William Hague: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that. Part of the work of GCHQ is to make it easier for us to combat serious and organised crime. In many ways, the privacy of the citizens of this country benefits substantially from the work of our agencies, because of what they are doing to protect the country. There is a strong argument to be made about that, rather than that their privacy is invaded. So that is a growing threat, and in many cases it is up to the private sector, working with GCHQ, to ensure that we are well equipped to defeat it.

Ann Clwyd: As one who continues to campaign for the young US-British soldier Bradley Manning, and exchanges e-mails and telephone calls with his defence counsel, can I assume that I am free from any surveillance, either from the United States or Britain?

William Hague: I can only reiterate what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) about the Wilson doctrine, and I believe that the right hon. Lady can be confident in that.

Julian Huppert: rose—

Mr Speaker: Time for a dose from the doctor.

Julian Huppert: Many British people use the online tools affected by Prism and many British companies will have commercially sensitive data on there—many people in government as well. The Americans are partly protected, but what rules are there on the collection of British data by the NSA or the uses that those data can be put to after they have been collected?

William Hague: The House will understand that I cannot speculate about the content of any leak or what has been argued in newspapers over the past few days, but we do have our own clear legal framework—the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the Human Rights Act 1998, all of which apply to data obtained by this country through co-operation with the US, just as they apply to any data we obtain ourselves. I think that people can be confident about that.

Caroline Lucas: Given that EU data protection laws currently offer no protection against backdoor US surveillance of this sort, will the Foreign Secretary commit to pushing for stronger measures in the current EU proposals, or does he agree with the Justice Secretary, who is reported to have said that plans to strengthen protections for UK citizens and businesses from such unwarranted spying are “mad”?

William Hague: I think that the hon. Lady might be quoting the Justice Secretary slightly out of context, in that he will have been referring to other aspects of the proposals. I cannot give her any guarantee that these controversies make it easier to agree proposals for EU directives, but I will go with my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary on these matters.

Ben Wallace: Could the Guardian’snon-story be summed up as: foreign Government monitor international terrorists and share intelligence with their allies? Will the Foreign Secretary join me in paying tribute to our allies, who share intelligence so that British citizens remain safe, both here and abroad?

William Hague: I absolutely join in the tributes to our allies. We depend on the United States a great deal for our national security, particularly in intelligence matters, and they also depend on us. This is an important two-way relationship, greatly assisting the security of both nations, and reaffirms what an indispensible relationship this is for the UK.

Ronnie Campbell: I think that 99% of the British public would agree that this is not about gathering information on terrorists. It is about the little fella—the fella who might be organising a demonstration against a rotten Government policy, or a trade unionist such as Len McCluskey or even Bob Crow organising a strike. I was involved in the 1984 miners’ strike, mind, and there was some funny intelligence work done then.

William Hague: I can only speak about the legal framework operating now on the basis of two Acts of Parliament, in 1994 and 2000, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if the Home Secretary and I were signing off interception warrants on political grounds, we would be
	in a great deal of trouble with the intercept commissioner and the ISC. The hon. Gentleman can be reassured about that.

Michael Ellis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our relationship with the US is a cornerstone of our national security infrastructure; that the exchange of material works both ways, aiding the US as well as the UK; that those who work on the paranoid assumption that this or some other programme is there to spy on UK and US citizens are wrong; and that a large proportion of the data collected is against third-party citizens in third-party countries?

William Hague: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, including about the importance of the relationship and about how inevitably the vast majority of work done together by the UK and US intelligence agencies is to guard against threats from elsewhere in the world.

Dennis Skinner: Following on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) said, and the fact that GCHQ has been involved in trade union disputes for a long time, can the Foreign Secretary give me an assurance? He will not explain precisely how this interception takes place on the advice of a Minister; but surely, if the Prime Minister of the day in 1984 said that the miners and the NUM were the “enemy within”, would that not give the green light to GCHQ to intervene in every single coalfield? Because that is what we believed.

William Hague: We are in a different century now—we are 13 years into the 21st century. The challenges are different and the focus of the intelligence agencies is different from decades in the past and very different, of course, from during the cold war. It is important for Opposition Members below the Gangway to start to move with the times.

Nick Herbert: Has not our national security relied for centuries on the effective intercept of communications? The Spanish armada was said to have been averted as much by the pen of Francis Walsingham as by the Royal Navy. Surely what has changed is the nature of those communications. The threat to the public comes not from the intelligence agencies, which have no interest at all in the communications of members of the public; but they will not be able to intercept communications if those data are not retained by providers.

William Hague: Since I refused to go back into the miners’ strike, I am reluctant to go into the Spanish armada, but the wider point that my right hon. Friend makes is of course absolutely correct. Two cross-party Committees in this House have looked at proposals for a communications data Bill, for instance, and said that changes are necessary, and he is adding to that point.

William Bain: Can the Secretary of State spell out to the House the precise difference between the legal framework applicable to the obtaining of intercept data by our intelligence services and that which applies to the use by our intelligence services of information obtained by their counterparts overseas?

William Hague: The legal framework is the one I have set out. The Acts that I have referred to, passed by Parliament, apply to all the intelligence gathered by the agencies. The hon. Gentleman will know that, for instance, section 3 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 confers particular powers and roles on GCHQ, so these things are governed by the same Acts of Parliament. Procedures differ, of course, in many different situations. It is because I cannot describe all those situations in public that I cannot go into exactly what that means for procedures in every case. I therefore cannot go as far in reassuring the hon. Gentleman or the shadow Foreign Secretary as they would like, but if they could see the full details of what happens, I think they would take an enormous measure of reassurance from it.

Tony Baldry: Given the comments of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and other former Cabinet Ministers on the Opposition Benches, can the House reasonably infer that there has been no change in policy with regard to GCHQ and information sharing from the last Government—in other words, that the system that prevails at present is identical to that which persisted and pertained when Labour was in government?

William Hague: The challenges of gathering intelligence change over time, so I would not want to give the House the impression that all practices and techniques are exactly the same or used in the same way. I can say, as I said in my statement, that the general framework remains the same—the principles of our intelligence sharing with the United States and the general framework for it certainly remain the same. The values on which it is based also remain the same, as under successive Governments.

Pete Wishart: We know that the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and all his right hon. Friends in the Conservative party Cabinet want the retention of large swathes of personal data, and he is prepared to compromise our civil liberties to obtain that, but does this episode not demonstrate what could go wrong if we had a home-grown snooper’s charter?

William Hague: I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the draft Communications Data Bill, which I have already mentioned in earlier answers. Two parliamentary Committees have considered the draft Bill and concluded that there is a need for legislation in this area, and the Government are committed to bringing forward proposals on that in the near future.

Bob Stewart: We are actually at cyber-war at the moment. Since the year 2000, the cyber-attacks on this country have multiplied some twentyfold. The Chinese held an exercise last week that they called a digital technology exercise at divisional level, involving men in uniform who are designed specifically to attack the west. Hacking can be far more deadly than a gun. May I encourage the Foreign Secretary and all his colleagues to ensure that GCHQ is as close to the National Security Agency as possible in the future?

William Hague: As I have said, GCHQ has a unique relationship with the National Security Agency. My hon. Friend is right to say that cyber-attack is an
	increasing threat in many different areas of government and of life in general. That is why the Government decided, in the strategic defence and security review three years ago, to invest an additional £650 million in our cyber-capabilities over a four-year period. The United Kingdom is one of the world leaders in cyber-defence and cyber-capabilities, and we are determined that we will remain in that position.

Tom Watson: For clarity, will the Foreign Secretary tell us whether he was told how the NSA collects this information, and on what date he was made aware of the Prism project?

William Hague: I go back to what I have said about being unable to confirm or deny leaked information. I am not commenting at all on information that has appeared in the newspapers. There might be leaks in the future from who knows what agency, and I would take the same view in such circumstances. We cannot conduct ourselves in these matters by commenting on every leak that takes place. The Intelligence and Security Committee will be able to look at these questions, but I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman in public the answers to the questions that he is raising.

Rory Stewart: Because this type of secret operation involves not just a legal problem but a difficult balancing of security and liberty, we should do more to explain what we are doing. An American citizen would have the right to an answer to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) asked about location information being offered for American drone strikes. Unless we begin to explain more to the public, secret operations will not be sustainable in the long term. The public must understand and, through understanding, consent.

William Hague: I go a certain way with my hon. Friend on this. There is a need to explain to the public in this country more than we have done for decades about the role of secret intelligence, its purpose and what it achieves. However, I do not think that will mean that we are able to describe in detail how our co-operation with other countries works on operational matters, for many obvious reasons. It would make it more difficult for us to protect this country if other people knew the exact techniques that we used. Also, other countries would be less willing to share their intelligence with the UK if they thought that we were not good at keeping it to ourselves. But we certainly need to raise public awareness of the need for what we do, and I started to do that in my speech on this subject in 2011. Perhaps today’s statement will also have that effect.

Paul Flynn: The Cathy Massiter case proved that, 50 years after the last war, intensive surveillance of peace activists, trade unionists and left-wing parties had failed to turn up a single spy, but it was discovered that in that same period, more than 20 members of the Secret Intelligence Service were spying for the Soviet Union. Since then, we have had untruths on weapons of mass destruction and a Government cover-up to this House on the handing over of prisoners to oppressive regimes to be tortured. Is the Foreign Secretary telling us today that the only people now under surveillance are the guilty? How does he manage that?

William Hague: I am telling the hon. Gentleman and the House about the many checks and balances and the strong legal framework. On all the controversies that he lists about the past—and they are controversies rather than necessarily facts—it would be fair to point out that there has been a constant process under successive Governments of improving how the intelligence agencies work. After the controversies over the use of intelligence in the Iraq war, for instance, we saw the Butler report, which has substantially changed the way intelligence is presented to Ministers and the way that Ministers decide. I referred in my statement to the creation of the National Security Council and to intelligence being given its due but proper weight alongside other information and considered in the round. The hon. Gentleman should take heart from the fact that such improvements take place.

Duncan Hames: It is good to know that our legal framework is not lost on the Foreign Secretary. He tells us that there are no grounds for suggesting that GCHQ obtained information from the United States that it could not obtain legally in the UK. Is it also the case that there are standard procedures in place sufficient to prevent that from happening?

William Hague: What I have argued is that the idea of GCHQ setting out to circumvent UK law by co-operation with other countries is baseless. UK law is applied to the data it receives, even if it is received from the United States, because ministerial oversight and independent oversight is all there. Part of the purpose of that oversight is to ensure that the misuse of the powers and the role of GCHQ does not take place.

Angus MacNeil: The term is always used that the intelligence services always operate within a “legal framework”. Is the Foreign Secretary certain that “legal framework” always means ethically and within the law, and that peaceful democratically elected political parties in the UK are not involved?

William Hague: Well, yes it does mean those things. It means that the legal framework is properly applied and what the agencies do has to be targeted, necessary, proportionate and authorised. It also has to be for the purposes set out in the relevant Acts of Parliament in the interests of national security, the country’s economic well-being or the prevention of serious crime and the protection of the country from it. These are the purposes of our intelligence agencies—and they stick to them.

Sarah Wollaston: Is the Foreign Secretary absolutely confident that, if a member of staff working at GCHQ had real concerns about wrongdoing among colleagues, the channels exist for that member of staff to have their concerns heard without needing to go to the media?

William Hague: Yes, absolutely. In such a case, concerns can be raised through the management structure. There is also the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, to which members of the intelligence services can take complaints or concerns without having to do so in public.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: I call Margot James.

Margot James: I am so sorry, Mr Speaker, but I was just getting up to leave the Chamber.

Mr Speaker: We are sorry the hon. Lady is taking her leave, but we will hear from her on other occasions. [Interruption.] She has nothing for which to apologise. I mistakenly thought she was trying to contribute. She should take her leave; we will give her a cheer [Hon. Members: “Hurray.]We will hear from her again soon. She is a very regular contributor.

Philip Hollobone: May I commend my right hon. Friend for his statement, for his personal grip and command over this issue and for the work that the security services do? I imagine that from the nature of the work they do and the people they are, our security services people are reticent about talking of their successes. At a time of heightened tension over international and domestic terrorism, will the Foreign Secretary encourage our security services wherever possible to put into the public domain the success stories in countering threats to our national security?

William Hague: My hon. Friend is right to suggest that we should be able to celebrate the successes of our security services. Unfortunately, however, we shall have to continue to celebrate those successes in fairly general terms. As my hon. Friend will understand, if we proclaimed some of our most successful intelligence operations in public, it would be very difficult to repeat them. Unfortunately, we have to protect this country against the same type of threat again and again, and from terrorism in particular. I therefore cannot, at the moment, offer a more specific statement about what the security services have succeeded in doing, but my hon. Friend can take it from me that there is much that is not known in relation to the protection of this country from terrorism in particular, but also from organised crime, that the country would truly celebrate if it knew about it.

Mark Pritchard: I join the Foreign Secretary in praising the professionalism and dedication of the staff of both the SIS and GCHQ. Edward Snowden, the CIA official who leaked the information, said that had he leaked it because he wanted to stand up against oppression and stand up for liberty. Is there not a perverse paradox that that gentleman made those claims not from Washington or London, but from the People’s Republic of China?

William Hague: Having earlier set myself the rule of not attacking the conduct of other nations, I am not going to break that rule now, but other people will be able to comment on this particular individual and his role. It is, of course, important for everyone who works for the agencies to remember that part of their responsibility is to uphold the laws of their country, and that in the case of the United States and the United Kingdom, those laws are designed to protect the lives and liberty of the citizens of those countries. That seems to have been too easily forgotten over the last few days.

Jason McCartney: NATO suffered a suspected 2,500 cyber-attacks on its network last year. Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether there is a similar level of suspected cyber-attacks on GCHQ ?

William Hague: There are undoubtedly cyber-attacks against all western intelligence agencies, including GCHQ, but GCHQ is particularly well adapted to defend itself against such attacks, and to have some idea of where they are coming from and when they are coming. I will not go into any more detail than that, but people would be quite fortunate to mount a successful cyber-attack against GCHQ itself.

Julian Smith: As we have heard, the rigour, quality and sheer scale of American intelligence is second to none. Given the threats that the UK currently faces, may I urge the Foreign Secretary to continue his robust public defence of the UK-US intelligence relationship?

William Hague: I feel suitably earthed by my hon. Friend, and by many other Members. It is always worth reminding ourselves again of the indispensable nature of that relationship, although we cannot give many of the details about it. It is a fundamental part—a cornerstone, as one of our hon. Friends said earlier—of maintaining the security of this country.

Dominic Raab: I welcome the reassurances given by the Foreign Secretary. I merely seek clarification of one point. If the UK is intercepting e-mails of British citizens, it requires a warrant from the Secretary of State, but that vital check is not in place when communications are received under Prism. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that Prism can be used quite legally to sidestep the level of safeguards that apply to UK-sourced intercept? How do we mitigate that risk?

William Hague: Again, I do not want anything that I say to be taken as a comment on information that has been leaked over the last few days, but the Intelligence and Security Committee will be able to study the issues raised by it, including the issues raised by my hon. Friend. That is the proper forum. I have already stressed the way in which ministerial and independent oversight applies to our relations with other intelligence agencies, including those in the United States, and my hon. Friend should therefore not jump to any conclusions about the absence of such oversight and authority.

Stephen Mosley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the concerns raised by some Members of this House demonstrate the limitations of the current RIPA system, which has failed to keep up with modern technological trends, and that there is a need for new measures, such as the draft Communications Data Bill, as amended by a Joint Committee of the Lords and the Commons, to ensure that our legislation is up to date, has parliamentary oversight and covers all the concerns raised?

William Hague: The case for the draft Communications Data Bill rests on its own merits. My hon. Friend refers to some of those merits and the Government will bring forward proposals in the near future on that subject.

Better Defence Acquisition

Philip Hammond: The defence of UK national interests is a priority for this Government. To secure that defence, we must provide our armed forces with the equipment and capabilities they need to operate in a rapidly changing security environment. Without the right equipment, delivered on time, properly maintained and available for use, our armed forces cannot function effectively and our national interests are put at risk. Effective procurement and support of defence equipment is therefore not just desirable, but an essential part of maintaining flexible and effective armed forces.
	For decades, there has been an acknowledgement that defence acquisition in this country can, and should, be done better. Despite numerous reviews and reorganisations, successive Governments have failed to embed the systemic changes necessary to achieve that objective. We owe it to the men and women of our armed forces, and to the long-suffering taxpayer, to do better.
	Two separate independent studies carried out for the Ministry of Defence have suggested that the costs arising from inefficiency in the procurement process are between £1.3 billion and £2.2 billion per annum. Waste on that scale is unacceptable at any time; more so at a time of acute pressure on the public finances. I am determined to drive a step change in the way we do our defence procurement business.
	In April, I announced to the House that we had launched the assessment phase for the Department's matériel strategy programme, considering two options for the future of the Defence Equipment and Support organisation: the first, a public sector benchmark, which we call “DE&S+”; and the second a Government-owned, contractor-operated entity, a “GoCo”.
	Today, I am publishing a White Paper that sets out the matériel strategy proposals in more detail, and provides more information about our intention to create a new statutory framework to drive better value in single-source procurement contracts, protecting the taxpayer in this significant area of MOD business. We believe that a GoCo-operating model is the solution that is most likely effectively to embed and sustain the significant change that is required to reform defence acquisition, but the decision will be based on an objective value-for-money comparison between the GoCo and DE&S+ options. The assessment phase is designed to deliver specific, costed, contract-quality proposals from GoCo bidders and test them against the DE&S+ benchmark.
	There has been considerable speculation in the media and elsewhere about the scope of a GoCo. At the most extreme, I have seen it suggested that the proposal is simply to hand over £15 billion a year of taxpayers' money to a private company and leave it to decide what kit to buy for our armed forces. Let me reassure the House that that is emphatically not the proposition. If GoCo is the selected option, the GoCo partner will manage DE&S on behalf of the Secretary of State. It will act as his agent. All contracts will continue to be entered into in the name of the Secretary of State. Strategic direction will be provided by a governance function that will remain within the MOD. The GoCo’s customers will be the front-line commands and the
	MOD itself. The DE&S work force will be transferred to the GoCo-operating company under standard TUPE arrangements and we will expect the GoCo partner to inject a small number of senior managers, and possibly some key technical staff.
	Crucially, the GoCo is assumed to be able to recruit and reward its staff at market rates—a critical freedom in a business that is required to deal with the private commercial sector on a daily basis. The proposal set out in the White Paper is for a phased transfer of DE&S to a GoCo, with checks and break points to allow us to halt the process if it is not delivering the results we require. The legislation and the contract will include a transfer regime that will allow the Secretary of State to transfer the business to another contractor, or back to the MOD, in extremis. If, at the end of the assessment phase, a GoCo operating model is selected, we will need to be able to move quickly to conclude a contract with the successful bidder. The Government therefore intend to provide in the Defence Reform Bill the necessary authorities to let a GoCo contract in 2014, together with measures required to allow a GoCo to operate effectively.
	There are finely balanced arguments about whether primary legislation is strictly required to allow the establishment of a GoCo. The Government have, however, decided that it is right that we should legislate in this instance because of the importance of DE&S+ to our armed forces and in order to ensure that Members of both Houses, many of whom take a keen interest in defence matters, have a proper opportunity to explore and debate the issues.
	The White Paper sets out the proposed model for a GoCo, its key features and our expectations with regard to the control that the Department will continue to exercise and the freedoms that the GoCo will enjoy. Its purpose is to set in context the legislation that we are bringing forward in the Defence Reform Bill, including provisions to ensure that the Ministry of Defence police have the appropriate jurisdiction to be able to operate within the GoCo environment, to extend certain statutory immunities and exemptions enjoyed by the Crown—for example, in relation to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Nuclear Installations Act 1965—to the new body, and to allow the transfer of shares in the operating company and/or property, rights and liabilities in the operating company or contracting entity at the direction of the Secretary of State.
	The White Paper also sets out reforms to how the MOD undertakes single-source procurement of defence equipment. Open competition is our preferred approach to getting value for money, but sometimes there is only a single provider of a capability we require, and the need to maintain critical national industrial capabilities or sovereign control of the intellectual property in equipment programmes sometimes requires us to place contracts with UK companies without a competitive process.
	Single-source procurement accounts for about 45% of the total the MOD spends on defence equipment and support, or about £6 billion per year, and is likely to remain at those levels for the next decade or so. Without competition, suppliers can price and perform without being constrained by the disciplines of the marketplace.
	There is a clear risk to defence and the taxpayer, and ensuring that we get good value for money in single-source procurement is a key part of my programme to reform defence acquisition.
	The MOD currently uses a framework for single-source procurement which has remained largely unchanged for the last 45 years, despite the far-reaching changes to the industrial landscape and to commercial procurement practices that have occurred in that time. Under this system, the profit contractors can earn is fixed, but there are few incentives for them to reduce costs. Such a system does not serve the best interests either of defence or of a competitive, export-focused defence industry.
	In 2011, the MOD commissioned Lord Currie of Marylebone to undertake an independent review of our existing approach and to make recommendations. He recommended a new framework: one that is based on transparency of contractor cost data, with much stronger supplier efficiency incentives, underpinned by stronger governance arrangements. Based on his recommendations and extensive consultations with our major single-source suppliers, we have developed the new framework I am proposing, details of which are set out in the White Paper. At its heart is the principle that industry gets a fair profit in exchange for providing the MOD with the transparency and protections we need to assure value for money.
	A statutory basis will ensure widespread coverage across our single-source suppliers and application of the regime throughout the single-source supply chain. The system will be policed by a stronger, independent, single source regulations office to monitor adherence and to ensure the regime is kept up to date. These changes will incentivise efficiency in operating costs and minimisation of overheads, supporting UK defence sector competitiveness both at home and in export markets.
	The proposals set out in this White Paper will deliver the real reform our acquisition system needs to provide the support our front-line forces deserve, to maximise the benefit of our £160 billion 10-year defence equipment programme, and to deliver value for money for the taxpayer. I commend this statement to the House.

Jim Murphy: I start by thanking the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it. Reform of defence procurement is one of the major challenges facing UK defence. Those on both sides of the House will want to see reforms that deal with overspends and overruns, and ensure that world-class equipment is delivered when and where our forces need it. For too long, the good intentions of successive Administrations have not delivered sufficient reform in defence procurement. However, just as some of the responsibility can be shared, our resolve to learn the right lessons and deliver far-reaching reform must also be collective. We therefore welcome much of today’s statement.
	Future procurement systems must provide value for money within financial constraints. Better performance will come from greater professional project management, faster decision making, fuller accountability for outcomes and a more considered use of military expertise. Labour supports reforms—the Bernard Gray report, on which
	today’s White Paper is based, was commissioned by the previous Government. We have proposed a new budgetary discipline, whereby deferred decisions that increase cost are accounted for within a rolling 10-year cycle, and increased certainty for industry over sovereign and off-the-shelf capabilities.
	Labour Members are open-minded about how that is achieved, but I wish to be clear that welcoming this process today is not the same thing as supporting a GoCo in principle. There needs to be rigorous examination of all the possible options and a robust comparison between the two options of a GoCo model and DE&S+. That comparison should rest on the principles of ensuring value for money within programmes; industry adhering to new targets on time and cost; maintaining parliamentary accountability; enhancing a culture of consequence for decision makers; and military involvement being based on tri-service working, not on single-service rivalry. So reform must extend across the Ministry of Defence. Too often, scope creep has led to systems exceeding identified need, and major decisions have been pushed to the right to save in the short term at the expense of longer-term budgetary bow wave. Today’s challenge for Ministers is not just to determine a management model, but to demonstrate that decades-long entrenched behaviours are being corrected.
	Let me deal with the specifics of today’s announcement. On the assessment phase, will the Secretary of State pledge to publish the findings of the two value-for-money studies and allow for a consideration by this House prior to a final decision being taken in the legislation? It is essential that Parliament, industry and our armed forces have full confidence that strategic affordability is the determining factor in this process. On costs, will the Secretary of State say whether the new management team of either model would re-cost the baseline of the core equipment programme, or would the figures published earlier this year remain? Furthermore, in light of the National Audit Office’s observation that the MOD’s assessment of risk is “not statistically viable”, would the new management be able to reform the current method of risk assessment? On staffing, the MOD has said that current reductions will not affect outputs. Would either management model be able to make decisions over staffing independently from the Secretary of State? Will he confirm that trade unions will be consulted throughout the assessment phase?
	It is essential to maximise military expertise, so will the Secretary of State say whether he considers it preferable to change the current ratio of military to civilian numbers in procurement within the MOD? Specifically on the GoCo, will he pledge that senior officials currently working on this process within the MOD will not be able to work for the GoCo consortium without a prolonged period of purdah? Many in the country will have a concern about the extent of a private entity’s potential reach over public policy. So, under these plans would a GoCo model cover the whole equipment programme, including the nuclear deterrent? What is the time scale for the implementation of a GoCo? That will enable us to judge when efficiencies may begin to accrue.
	One of the biggest uncertainties around GoCo has to do with the ownership of risk and whether contractors could generate private profit while financial risk remained in public hands. For example, can the Secretary of State say whether liability for the £468 million cost overrun
	noted in the National Audit Office’s “Major Projects Report 2012” would have rested with the taxpayer or the GoCo, had it been established?
	On the single source regulations office, we welcome the proposal in principle and will examine it closely. It is essential to drive down cost where possible in single sourcing, as the Secretary of State said. Will he say a little more about who would appoint the members, and whether regulations would be subject to the one-in, one-out rule?
	In conclusion, we will support what we hope is a genuine competition. We will scrutinise the processes carefully, because efficient and effective defence procurement is essential, not just for the Ministry of Defence bottom line, but for the remarkable men and women of our armed forces, whom we place in harm’s way to serve on the front line.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome of this announcement. Of course I completely accept that the Opposition’s willingness to look at the issues with an open mind is not the same as an uncritical endorsement of the GoCo concept, and just in case I did not make this clear in my opening remarks, we have not yet accepted the GoCo concept as the chosen outcome; we are conducting an assessment. However, I think we agree across the House—Opposition Members who have, in office, experienced the challenge of trying to make the defence budget add up will certainly agree—on the need for change. The intentions are very clear.
	The process that we are talking about was kicked off by the Gray report, published in 2009. I note that the then Secretary of State has strongly endorsed the GoCo model, which he feels is the way forward. We are examining the case for GoCo against the baseline of DE&S+. We have two separate teams, working with Chinese walls between them, that are equally resourced. One is trying to build the maximum fully-public-sector case that it can, taking advantage of all freedoms and flexibilities available. The other is working with potential GoCo bidders to look at the value that they can deliver. At the end of the process, we will make a comparison.
	The right hon. Gentleman talked about the cost drivers from past scope creep. One of the clear advantages of changing the way that DE&S works is creating a harder boundary between the customer and the company supplying the requirements, making it less easy for scope to creep without a proper change process and proper recognition of the costs involved. He asked me whether the baseline would be re-costed. We do not anticipate a re-costing of the programme baseline. If we go down the GoCo route, we will negotiate with GoCo bidders for an incentivised fee structure, based on the existing costed programme. He will know that an independent cost advisory service sits alongside DE&S, and will play a continuing role in independently assessing the costs of projects and the appropriate level of risk to be attached to them.
	Unsurprisingly, the right hon. Gentleman asked me about staffing levels in a post-GoCo DE&S, if GoCo is the selected solution. The staffing transfer would be made under the TUPE regulations. We anticipate about 8,000 of DE&S’s projected 14,500 2015 staff numbers transferring to the new entity, with the remainder—in
	naval dockyards, logistics, communications, and information services—remaining in other parts of Government, or being outsourced.
	There is no reason to suppose that the GoCo route is more likely to deliver further staffing reductions than any other route. Clearly, the new management team, whether it is a GoCo or DE&S+, will seek to run the business efficiently, and to use the freedoms and flexibilities available to it to deliver outputs as effectively as possible.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the ratio of military to civilian personnel in DE&S. At present about 25% of the personnel in DE&S are military. We expect the military role, which will be performed by secondees in the future, to focus on providing specifically military advice to the DE&S organisation, rather than filling line management and project management roles, so I do not expect the military proportion of staff to increase, and it may decrease under a future model.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked me a question, the motivation for which I entirely understand, about senior officials. Nobody wants to see such exercises becoming a gilded exit route for senior officials, and I am pleased to be able to tell him that the Chief of Defence Matériel, the most senior official in DE&S, will transfer to the MOD side—the customer side—of the equation and will be responsible for designing and managing the customer side. I cannot, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, give him an absolute assurance that other officials in the Department, should they choose to leave the Department, would not at some point in the future be able to join a GoCo, but of course there are rules and restrictions in place—a Cabinet Office regime which has been reinforced following revelations in The Sunday Times last year—and we will make sure that nobody is able to abuse this process.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether the GoCo would cover the nuclear deterrent. It will certainly cover the procurement of Vanguard replacement submarines. The management of our nuclear warheads is carried out by the Atomic Weapons Establishment, itself already a GoCo. We have not yet finally decided whether the new GoCo, if there is one, will be responsible for managing the MOD’s relationship with AWE or whether that will be managed directly. That will be one of the issues dealt with in negotiation with potential GoCo bidders.
	On timescale, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we expect to reach a decision in the summer of next year, with a view to the new arrangements, whether GoCo or DE&S, being stood up before the end of 2014.
	Finally, I turn to the question of risk ownership. This is an important point which has been somewhat misunderstood by some commentators. Clearly, it would be very attractive to think that we could transfer the programme risk in the defence equipment programme—£160 billion of it—to somebody in the private sector, but the reality is that there is nobody who has a balance sheet big enough, probably anywhere in the world, and the taxpayer would not be prepared to accept the price for taking on that risk, so the risk ownership in the programme will remain with the Government and the taxpayer. What the private sector partner will be at risk for is his fee, which will be structured in such a way as to incentivise the delivery of the key performance indicators
	that will be agreed with the partner during the negotiation process. That will be designed to align the GoCo partner’s incentives with the interests and priorities of the Department. That is where a great deal of our time and energy is being invested at present.

James Arbuthnot: What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with key allies, notably the United States and France, about this proposal and what has been their response?

Philip Hammond: I thank my right hon. Friend for a very important question. We have had discussions with key allies, notably the United States and France. The United States, contrary to some media reporting, is relaxed about this process. It recognises that there will be some technical issues that we need to resolve, but I am glad to be able to tell him that the Chief of Defence Matériel received this morning, by coincidence, a letter from his counterpart, the Under-Secretary for defence procurement, in the Pentagon confirming that the United States is confident that it will be possible to make these arrangements work. We have set up a joint working group to work through the issues that will need to be addressed before a decision is made.

Madeleine Moon: What powers will Defence Ministers and Select Committees have to intervene and examine contracts, negotiations and procurements if the GoCo goes ahead? What powers of oversight will Parliament retain?

Philip Hammond: As I said earlier, the procurement contracts will still be entered into in the name of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State and Ministers will remain accountable to Parliament and to the Select Committee. The permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence will remain accountable to the Public Accounts Committee, and access to and scrutiny and oversight of those contracts will be exactly the same as they are now.

Bob Stewart: Will the proposed GoCo have the power to negotiate independently of the Ministry of Defence to try to get a really good deal out of a foreign defence contractor in, for example, in the United States?

Philip Hammond: If doing so was within the remit given it by the Secretary of State, it would have that power. I need to be very clear about this. The point of hiring a commercial partner is to deploy its commercial expertise. There is no point hiring it and then constraining it so tightly that we do not get any benefit from it. On the other hand, it will be very clear, and I am very clear, that it will always operate within the framework of strategic direction that has been given by the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State will retain a power to intervene and specifically direct it on a specific point within its management of a programme if necessary.

Angus Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Will he clarify that should one go down the GoCo route he has no objection in principle to the winner of a GoCo contract, should that be the preferred outcome, being headquartered in the United States, Europe or further afield?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman and the House might be interested to know that of the 21 expressions of interest that we have received in response to the issue of the pre-qualification questionnaire, a third have been UK- headquartered companies, but it is likely that the winner of a competition for a GoCo will be a consortium and it is highly likely that some members of that consortium will be non-UK companies. In fact, to be frank, it is highly likely that it will include US-headquartered companies, but the entity with which we contract will be UK-registered and domiciled, and will pay its tax in the UK.

Penny Mordaunt: I congratulate the ministerial team on its progress on this important matter. DE&S covers Her Majesty’s Navy bases. Will the Secretary of State reassure me that his announcement today will not affect the proposal to transfer them to the Royal Navy?

Philip Hammond: I can assure my hon. Friend that the plan to transfer the Royal Navy dockyards out of DE&S, along with the plan to transfer the logistics and commodities supply service out of DE&S to an outsource contractor, will continue on track. That is why there is a gap between the projected 2015 total numbers of DE&S on a steady state basis, and the 8,000 that we are expecting to transfer under a TUPE transfer if we go down this route.

Hugh Bayley: How much does the Secretary of State think that the new arrangement will save each year? Will those savings be used to buy additional equipment for our armed forces, or simply returned to the Treasury, leaving our servicemen with less?

Philip Hammond: The latter part of the hon. Gentleman’s question is clearly one that I cannot answer on a unilateral basis, but I suspect that, in the way that generally happens, there is a potential win-win situation here—a win for the taxpayer in terms of lower public expenditure and a win for the armed forces in terms of greater capabilities being able to be purchased. I think I included these figures in my statement, but the independent estimates are that somewhere between £1.3 billion and £2.2 billion of frictional costs generated by inefficiencies in the procurement system are incurred every year. It would be a very rash man who suggested that we can squeeze out every last pound of those, but I would expect us to be able to achieve net gains after taking account of the cost of the arrangements—the GoCo fee and the cost of the governance function on the MOD side—in the hundreds of millions of pounds.

Julian Brazier: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s thoughtful statement. Will he confirm not only that Aldermaston is a GoCo, but that in fact most of the American nuclear programme has historically been run by university-led GoCos? I urge him to look carefully at the issue of military project managers and at the experience from abroad. In land systems, in particular, we can end up with a project manager and an expensive military adviser, rather than one uniformed officer driving it forward. It is worth looking at the Swedish experience, for example, which is of a very effective and tight ship with mostly military project managers.

Philip Hammond: I hear my hon. Friend’s point but, to be blunt, I think that we have to be realistic about this and acknowledge that military personnel are not necessarily trained to be best equipped to deal with world-class industrial project managers employed on eye-wateringly large salaries by the defence contractors we have to negotiate with. It is to try to allow DE&S to engage with those multinational corporations and world-class project managers on a level playing field that we are considering these changes. There will be a role for the military in this organisation, but it will not generally be as lead project mangers.
	On my hon. Friend’s other point, I am grateful to him for drawing the House’s attention to the fact that the majority of the US nuclear programme is in the hands of non-public sector organisations—federally funded research and development corporations—which look very much like GoCos.

John Woodcock: The strategic defence and security review in October 2010 resulted in a four-year delay to the in-service date for the Vanguard class replacement submarines. It was by no means the first project that has been shifted to the right with increased costs, but it caused particular disappointment because it was done by an Administration who, when in opposition, criticised the former Administration for doing similar things. If a GoCo is in place when such decisions are considered in future, on submarines or anything else, will it be taken out of Ministers’ hands?

Philip Hammond: As I have already said, Ministers will retain the ability to provide strategic direction. If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will take no lectures from the Opposition on shifting projects to the right at huge cost, because the previous Government shifted the carrier project two years to the right at a cost of £1.6 billion. What was actually done in 2010, in relation to the submarine enterprise, was a reconfiguration of the programme between the Astute class submarines and work on the Vanguard class replacement submarines, which resulted in a delay to the introduction into service of the Vanguard class, but within the overall constraint that we have in this country of needing to sustain a submarine yard at Barrow, and the minimum level at which we can sustain a submarine yard is building one submarine at a time. However we configure them—Vanguard class first or Astute class first—we have to provide that work flow if we are to keep that sovereign capability. That is the kind of single-source procurement that we are targeting in the announcement I made today on the single-source procurement rules.

Martin Horwood: I commend the Secretary of State for getting to grips with defence procurement, which is long overdue, but does he recognise that there is nervousness in some quarters about the complexity of the emerging process, which will involve the MOD, the armed forces, NATO, the private supplier, the GoCo and the independent cost advisory service? Can he give the House any reassurance that new inefficiencies will not creep into the system as a result of that complexity?

Philip Hammond: I will be very frank with the hon. Gentleman: one of the things I have learnt over the past three years is that new inefficiencies creep in all the time
	if one is not continually vigilant. That, incidentally, is why, however much one thinks one has squeezed out all the inefficiencies, when one goes back around the loop and looks again one finds more that were not noticed the last time or that have crept in since. He is absolutely right to say that it is a complex enterprise, but within the overall portfolio of defence transformation—we are carrying out many hugely complex projects simultaneously —it is just one of many, and I am confident that we can manage it.

William McCrea: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the interests of national security and the safety of our armed forces, to whom we owe a great debt of gratitude, as well as value for taxpayers’ money, will be at the heart of the changes in defence procurement? Will he also assure us that all essential defence equipment will be made available to our front-line forces in the defence of the nation?

Philip Hammond: I can of course give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We are trying to do two things: to ensure that the £160 billion defence equipment and support programme is delivered effectively to our armed forces and that it is delivered efficiently and in a value-for-money way to the taxpayer. In the end, this allows us better, more reliably and more sustainably to support our armed forces while ensuring that this is done in an appropriate way during a period of public financial austerity.

Gerald Howarth: I was a fan of Mr Bernard Gray’s report in 2009 when I was shadow defence procurement Minister, but I was a bit nervous about his proposals for a GoCo, so I welcome my right hon. Friend’s caution; he has taken the right attitude. Will he set out the mechanism by which he hopes to be able to maintain the crucial industrial capabilities that this nation needs, because that is an extremely important part of his statement? Will he also set out how the new proposals might avoid the mistakes of the £800 million cost overrun on the disastrous Nimrod programme?

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He knows me and he knows that I am a cautious person. This is a big and complicated project, and we are approaching it carefully. We are weighing up the options and taking the appropriate length of time to make the decisions, and I am confident that they will deliver the result that we require. He asks about our national sovereign capabilities. We have set out our approach to the defence industry in the White Paper “National Security Through Technology”. We have also set out today, in this White Paper, the proposed changes to single-source pricing regulation and how we expect to drive greater efficiency into the single-source part of the defence industry that delivers about half our requirements. Only by making those in that sector focus on reducing costs, which they currently have very little incentive to do, will we make them not only efficient providers to us but efficient and competitive players in the international defence export market. That is in the interests of the industry, the UK’s armed forces and UK plc.

Tom Greatrex: The Secretary of State referred to the freedom to recruit and reward staff with market rates as, I think,
	a “critical” freedom in the potential move to a GoCo. In that phased transfer, would any increased remuneration in bonus packages still come from the MOD baseline?

Philip Hammond: That depends. We would expect a GoCo contractor to inject a certain number of senior staff who would be part of its package and who would be remunerated through its incentivised fee. Within the overall DE&S work force, getting the right skills in the right places will be part of the task for the management contractor. In some cases, that will mean recruiting at market rates, because at the moment we are haemorrhaging talent. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), has just given me an example where we had nine applicants for 70 commercial posts that have recently been advertised. We have to address the haemorrhage of talent from DE&S by offering market rates if we are to support our armed forces as we need to.

Peter Luff: The Secretary of State will understand how pleased I am that he has announced the implementation of the major elements of the report that I commissioned from Lord Currie on single-source pricing regulations—a highly technical but really important subject. On DE&S, does he share my concern that there may be forces even in his own Department, and certainly elsewhere in Government, that may wish to frustrate the progress towards a GoCo? May I encourage him to reassure me that he will work enthusiastically and energetically, notwithstanding his caution, to overcome unreasonable, opportunistic or bureaucratic obstacles put in his way on the path to a GoCo?

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and happy to acknowledge the crucial part that he has played in the process that has led us to this announcement. I can safely say that yes, there will always be forces that resist any change that I look to make. We have to carry the case by making the argument, building it during the assessment phase and then presenting the value-for money case for the Go-Co against the DE&S+ benchmark comparator. I am absolutely clear that we have to make that case: there is no pre-judgment that a GoCo is the route we will follow. We have to prove that it provides value for money, and do so to some of the institutionally most sceptical forces—no names, no pack drill—in Government.

Paul Flynn: Has the Secretary of State noticed the extraordinarily high number of former Ministers, civil servants, admirals and generals who awarded contracts to companies when in office and then ended up working for the self same companies in retirement? Would not it be a good idea to ban these senior people from working in companies to which they have awarded contracts, in order to ensure that contracts are awarded in office on the basis of the needs of the public purse and not on people’s hopes to gain a hacienda in Spain from their retirement earnings?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is being a little harsh: most if not all of the elected and appointed people with whom I have come into contact do their very best to deliver in the public interest. We have a rigorous set of rules in place to deal with the cross-boundary
	issues between the public and private sectors. We must never get into a situation where we prevent or discourage all transfer between the public and private sectors. That would be a disaster. We need that flow of lifeblood between the two, but we need it to be done properly: it has to be properly regulated and transparent.
	To answer the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, when The Sunday Times published revelations last year about people who had gone from senior military roles into defence industries, I asked the same question as he has and the advice I received was that it would not be lawful to issue an unlimited ban preventing people from taking up one career once they had left another.

Douglas Carswell: For decades, much of the defence budget has been spent in the interests of defence contractors: by constraining the range of suppliers, the seller gets to set the terms of trade. How will these reforms ensure more choice and competition in defence procurement?

Philip Hammond: I am sorry to say that where there is a single supplier or a national security reason for our having to procure in the UK, we cannot magic up a competitive marketplace. What we can do in such circumstances is control the pricing of those contracts. At the moment, under the current regime, profit is clearly controlled but costs are not, and there is no incentive for contractors to control and manage their costs. What we are proposing is a regime where, as now, profit is controlled but where there are clear financial incentives for contractors to control their costs and get them down. By working in this way—by aligning the interests of defence with those of the contractors—we will drive out cost and increase the amount of deliverable military capability to our armed forces.

Katy Clark: What implications will this announcement have on complex weapons systems and in particular on establishments such as Defence Munitions Beith in my own constituency, which houses and services such weapons systems?

Philip Hammond: In terms of our procurement of weapons systems and of contractor support for weapons systems, the DE&S will work as the agent of the Secretary of State. I am not sure that I can put my finger on the precise function of the establishment mentioned by the hon. Lady, but we have a separate programme to outsource some of the defence logistics and commodity procurement activities, which I mentioned earlier. None of theses plans will be changed by whether DE&S is run in future as a GoCo or as a fully public sector DE&S+ model.

Mark Menzies: Several thousands of my constituents are employed at BAE Systems in Warton, which is involved in advanced manufacturing of military aircraft. What benefits are they likely to see as a result of today’s announcement?

Philip Hammond: They will see benefits at two levels and a healthier BAES as a result of this announcement. First, large defence contractors, perhaps counter-intuitively, do not relish the lack of a capable interlocutor in their trading partners. They would welcome our beefing up our capability and having higher-skilled, better-paid project managers on our side of the table, because that
	would drive genuine efficiencies into the process. At that level, we know that the companies will welcome this announcement. Secondly, on single-source procurement, I am confident that over time by incentivising cost-efficiency we will increase the exportability of British defence products, which are an incredibly important part of our high-tech manufacturing industries and help us to sustain jobs at the very top of the curve.

John Baron: These are early days and final decisions are yet to be made, but what indication can the Secretary of State give about the impact of this announcement on jobs at MOD Abbey Wood? Will he ensure that suitable provisions are in place for the employees who may be affected?

Philip Hammond: As my hon. Friend knows, the TUPE transfer of an enterprise does not imply any reduction in job numbers at the outset. It is true that a private sector partner taking on a work force of this nature will, over time, look to reconfigure the shape of the work force to make the business as efficient as possible. However, it will have to do that within the constraints of the TUPE regulations, normal employment law and the arrangements that are in place for negotiation with the trade unions.

Bernard Jenkin: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for the White Paper, which will be of great interest to the Public Administration Committee because it is conducting an inquiry into procurement across Government, including defence procurement. I remain to be convinced that a GoCo is the right idea. If, as he says, the objective is to be able to recruit and reward staff at market rates, why can we not legislate to do that in the Ministry of Defence, instead of contracting it out? After all, is not the acquisition of defence matériel and equipment a core function of the Ministry of Defence? We must have those skills in-house, because we cannot expect to manage them in some arm’s length contractor.

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend says that he remains to be convinced; I am glad to confirm that I remain to be convinced. It is exactly the point of the assessment phase to convince us collectively that this is the right way to go. This proposal is about being able to employ staff at market rates, but that is only a small part of the total challenge. There are many other cultural and behavioural changes that need to be delivered to make it work. He is right that defence procurement is a core function. That is why we will maintain a competent customer function in the MOD, led by the Chief of Defence Matériel and supported by an external private sector consultant to build the intelligent customer function, to ensure that we are in a robust position to manage the GoCo contractor, if that is the route that we choose, not just now but through future evolutions of the GoCo and future appointments of GoCo contractors.

Jeremy Lefroy: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for the grip that he has on his Department’s budget. Clearly, the first priority of defence procurement is value for money for the taxpayer, but does the procurement system also take into account the export potential of UK-based companies when making its assessments?

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Export potential is an important consideration and one of the Department’s stated priorities. As I have said, I believe that what we are doing, particularly with regard to the single-source procurement regulations, will drive export competitiveness into defence contractors. If a GoCo is appointed, one of its required tasks will be the support of UK defence exports, which is a UKTI lead.

Jason McCartney: What implications, if any, will these long overdue reforms have for small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency that are already employed in the defence procurement supply chain?

Philip Hammond: We have an active policy of encouraging the engagement of SMEs in the defence supply chain and it includes many thousands of SMEs. The single-source pricing regulations will apply throughout the supply chain, but will have a price threshold. We expect almost all SMEs not to be directly affected because their level of transactions with the MOD will fall below the price threshold. The threshold is yet to be determined, but it is likely to be about £5 million.

Peter Bone: I thank the excellent Secretary of State for coming to the House and making this statement. One problem that I have seen with defence procurement is not the way in which equipment has been procured, but the decision by the Ministry of Defence at the beginning of the process to have something more than the standard package. There was the nonsense with the Chinook aircraft, which were bought but never flew because the Department wanted to add to them. Will there be more emphasis on buying standard packages?

Philip Hammond: That depends on what we are buying. Clearly, there are things that we can buy off the shelf or from competitive international providers. We recently ordered the new fleet of MARS—military afloat reach and sustainability—refuelling tankers from a South Korean shipyard. That decision did not go down well with everybody, but it was sensible procurement. At the same time, we have to maintain important capabilities that are essential to our national sovereignty here in the UK. In those cases, we have to support the indigenous industry. One purpose of the changes is to make transparent the costs that are driven into a project by the specification of bespoke requirements and to force the customers to recognise those costs.

James Morris: I welcome the statement, but will the Secretary of State say more about the timescale over which he expects the reforms to deliver tangible savings to the taxpayer?

Philip Hammond: As I said to the shadow Secretary of State, if we went down this route, we would expect to award a contract next year and for it to be effective by the last quarter of 2014. We would then expect there to
	be a two-stage process towards the full GoCo-isation—if I may use that term—of DE&S. We would expect savings and efficiencies to be generated from the very beginning, and from the second year of operation we would expect there to be cashable benefits.

Philip Hollobone: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. Were he to save the full £1.3 billion to £2.2 billion of waste that he has identified, he would be able to buy an extra one or two Type 45 destroyers a year and to start to rebuild the Royal Navy back to its proper size. Will he confirm that this is the biggest waste black hole in the MOD budget and that no other hole in the budget has a bigger annual cost?

Philip Hammond: It is certainly our assessment that the frictional costs of inefficiencies within defence procurement are the biggest single challenge that we face and our biggest single opportunity. I was at Portsmouth the week before last and talked to the commander of the dockyard. He told me that once the Queen Elizabeth carriers are berthed there, he will be making provision for some 200,000 tonnes of fighting ships to be tied up in the harbour. That will be largest tonnage that he or his predecessors have had to make provision for since the 1960s.

Richard Fuller: I understood from my right hon. Friend’s thoughtful statement that the organisational merits underpinning the GoCo would be cultural change and skills enhancements to deliver efficiencies. Will he tell the House in more detail what missing skills he hopes to attract? Will he also reassure us by saying what steps he will take in the incentives scheme for the management company of the GoCo to avoid the perverse incentives that led to so many financial messes in public-private contracting under the last Government?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is right in setting out the changes that are required. One he did not mention, but which is important, is creating a hard boundary between the customer and the provider organisation. At the moment, responsibilities across that boundary are not as clear cut as they should be, and that allows specification scope to drift on occasions. Let me give him a couple of examples. We currently spend in DE&S £400 million a year on external technical support because we cannot hire the people we need. Being unable to hire somebody at £50,000 a year means that we are paying a contractor £1,000 a day to do the work. We expect the GoCo contractor, if we go down that route, to make substantial early savings by hiring key technical capabilities into the organisation, rather than by bringing them in as technical contractors. He is absolutely right about perverse incentives. Our big challenge now in the assessment phase is to negotiate a set of key performance indicators and incentive payment structures that align a GoCo contractor with the priorities of the Ministry of Defence.

Points of Order

Greg Mulholland: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice on a matter that is of concern to the whole House. On Friday, an e-mail was sent to all MPs by the chief executive officer of Enterprise Inns, Mr Ted Tuppen. He opposes plans, announced by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, to introduce the statutory code of practice. In the e-mail, he included something entirely false: he claimed that living accommodation is free to its lessees when in reality, as he knows, a tribunal ruled last year that his company has been invoicing separate amounts for residential accommodation for 20 years in the proportion of 90% commercial, 10% residential. Mr Tuppen has history: in 2008-09, he misled the Business and Enterprise Committee. How do we deal with false and misleading information that is sent to all MPs in an attempt to block legislation?

Lindsay Hoyle: I have certainly got the message. It is not a point of order, but it is on the record so that everybody can be aware of it. Everybody received the e-mail. As somebody who was a member of the Select Committee at that time, I am well aware of the particular individual. Ultimately, it is not a point for the Chair, but at least others can pick up on it.

John Woodcock: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice on whether it is in order for the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) to have received advance notice of the Defence Secretary’s statement.

Lindsay Hoyle: That is up to the Government, and the hon. Member for Moray represents his party. If the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) were to do the audit trail, he will find that that is where it has come from.

Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

[Relevant documents: Twelfth Report of the Home Affairs Committee, Session 2012-13, The draft Anti-social Behaviour Bill: pre-legislative scrutiny, HC 836, and the Government response, Cm 8607; Seventh Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Session 2012-13, Dog Control and Welfare, HC 575, and the Government response, HC 1092; First Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Draft Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill, HC 95.]
	Second Reading

Theresa May: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	In three years, the Government have made significant strides in cutting crime and reforming the police. Since 2010, crime has fallen by more than 10%. This is in no small measure down to the professionalism and dedication of police officers and police staff working day in, day out to keep our neighbourhoods safe. The reduction in crime has been achieved against the backdrop of a difficult financial climate for the police, as for other public services. We have taken the decisions necessary to restore this country’s long-term economic well-being. We have been able to mitigate the impact of diminished resources because we have allowed officers to focus on their core task of cutting crime. We have thrown off the straitjacket of national targets and freed up the front line from pointless form-filling and needless bureaucracy. Through the introduction of police and crime commissioners, we have revolutionised the accountability of police forces, and they are now far more responsive to local needs and priorities.
	In the last Session, we legislated to set up the National Crime Agency which will, from the autumn, lead the fight against serious, organised and complex crime. The College of Policing is already firmly established and is leading the way in ensuring that the police operate to the highest professional standards. We are giving the Independent Police Complaints Commission the capacity it needs to investigate all serious allegations of misconduct. We cannot, however, afford to ease up on our reform programme. We cannot rest while the crime survey shows that there were 8.9 million crimes against adults last year. We cannot rest while businesses were the victims of more than 9 million crimes, or rest when the police recorded approximately 2.3 million incidents of antisocial behaviour, with many more going unreported.

Keith Vaz: I, and the Home Affairs Committee, support what the right hon. Lady is doing on the new landscape of policing. She listed a number of the organisations and described how they would fit into the new landscape. Has she made a decision on whether counter-terrorism is to remain with the Metropolitan police, or will it be placed with the new National Crime Agency?

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his early remarks, and for the work of the Home Affairs Committee in its consideration of the Bill. We value its work. The answer to his question is no. It is still a
	matter for decision. I was clear, at an early stage, that it would not be right to make a decision on where counter-terrorism should sit before the Olympics or before the National Crime Agency was properly up and running. The legislation has now passed and we are working towards the formal and final launch of the NCA later this year.
	The Bill marks the next stage of our reform programme to deal with the challenges we face.

Richard Fuller: Before my right hon. Friend moves on, will she take this opportunity to congratulate the retiring chief constable of Bedfordshire, Alfred Hitchcock, who manages one of the smallest forces in the country? Crime rates are down, detection rates are up and our budget has been reduced in line with Government expectations. As he rightly said:
	“instead of an 82-page business plan we have a card that explains what we do and why.”

Theresa May: I am grateful—[Interruption.] I suspect there might be one or two more sedentary interventions; it was an interesting moment when I was told that Alfred Hitchcock was in my office at the Home Office waiting to see me. I congratulate retiring Chief Constable Alf Hitchcock on the work he has done in Bedfordshire. I congratulate all police staff who work in Bedfordshire on the impact of their work in ensuring that crime has gone down. We now see a much clearer focus for members of the public on what the police are doing and how they are delivering for my hon. Friend’s constituents and others.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I cannot top Alfred Hitchcock, but will the Home Secretary join me in congratulating another eminent campaigner who has welcomed many aspects of the Bill that relate to dog law reform—Mr Dave Joyce of the Communication Workers Union? However, does she share his frustration that it has taken three years since the consultation closed in May 2010? In that time, 9,000 of his postal worker colleagues have been attacked by dogs. When will we see the measures in the Bill implemented?

Theresa May: I note the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, and I also note the efforts of the CWU on this matter. Sadly, in recent years we have seen a number of serious injuries from dogs, not just to postal workers but to other individuals. That is why I am pleased that the Bill contains measures on dangerous dogs. The first stage is for the Bill to be supported in its progress through this House and the other place.
	Parts 1 to 5 will ensure that the police, local authorities and others have a comprehensive set of fast, flexible and responsive powers to tackle the scourge of antisocial behaviour. We should not forget that much of what is labelled antisocial behaviour is in fact crime. Even low-level public order offences or criminal damage can be frightening and upsetting for victims, and can blight the appearance of a neighbourhood. If left unchecked, the cumulative impact of even a small number of repeat instances can have devastating consequences.
	I would be the first to accept that legislation by and of itself is not the answer to antisocial behaviour. What is needed is for the police, councils, landlords and other
	agencies to work effectively together to address local problems before they get out of hand. In many cases, informal, non-statutory remedies can be used to nip a problem in the bud. There is clearly a need, however, for more formal powers. They need to be fit for purpose, quick and easy to use, effective at changing behaviours and capable of addressing the full spectrum of problems that can afflict communities. That does not describe the powers available under Labour’s legislation.

Anne McIntosh: Will my right hon. Friend explain that this is the first opportunity the House has had seriously to consider revising the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which was good legislation but has required some revision? For what reason have her Department and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs drawn back from the full consolidation of the legislation, as possibly initially considered?

Theresa May: Many comments are made about the dangerous dogs legislation and its impact. It is right that we have looked simply at the area where we feel that more legislation is required. This is already a lengthy Bill covering several issues. Rather than trying to consolidate the existing legislation in this Bill, the important issue is filling in the gaps by addressing the powers that still need to be available to people.
	The previous antisocial behaviour legislation provided a veritable alphabet soup of powers: the ASBI—antisocial behaviour injunction; the DBO—drinking banning order; the ISO—individual support orders; the DPPO—designated public places order; and of course the ASBO and many more. I am sure that each of the nine major pieces of antisocial behaviour law passed by the previous Administration was enacted with the best of intentions, but that piecemeal approach, with each new Bill responding to the latest manifestation of antisocial behaviour, has left practitioners with 19 separate powers. The result has been not effectiveness but confusion about which of those powers should and could be used in any particular case.

Alok Sharma: I think that the Home Secretary has started to make this point already, but does she agree that what victims of antisocial behaviour want is not a complicated smorgasbord of options open to agencies, but a quick and effective remedy that can make real changes in their local area, which is exactly what the Bill will give us?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I will come on to explain the various new powers in the Bill, the whole point of which is to provide a remedy that is effective, easier and quicker, enabling us to remedy the problems of antisocial behaviour from which too many of our constituents suffer.
	The Bill sweeps away the existing powers and replaces them with a streamlined, flexible framework: just six powers that will equip practitioners with the tools they need to keep their communities safe. The criminal behaviour order and the injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance will stop antisocial behaviour by individuals and address the underlying causes of their actions. The dispersal power will enable the police to move on groups or individuals causing problems at particular locations.
	The community protection notice, the public spaces protection order and the new closure power will deal with environmental problems or disorderly conduct at particular localities or premises.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Theresa May: I shall indulge the hon. Gentleman.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The right hon. Lady is indeed indulging me with her generosity. How will she seek to balance the public spaces protection order against the legitimate interest of users of public spaces and rights of way, including the Ramblers Association, which, for understandable reasons, is concerned that it could lead to the blocking off of areas that people have sought access to, legitimately, for many years?

Theresa May: I do not see that being a problem as a result either of the public spaces protection order when dealing with environmental problems in public spaces or of the collection of orders when dealing with people who behave inappropriately in public spaces. This is about ensuring that public spaces are available to people; that they feel able to use those public spaces; and that antisocial behaviour or environmental problems do not prevent it.
	Part 5 will strengthen the powers of landlords to evict individuals who blight the lives of their neighbours. These provisions have had the benefit of pre-legislative scrutiny by the Home Affairs Select Committee—as I said earlier, I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and his colleagues for their thorough examination of the draft Bill. The evidence they heard reinforces our view that the existing powers are often slow, difficult to deploy and in need of rationalisation. There are those in the Opposition who seek to characterise the provisions in the Bill as a weakening of the powers to tackle antisocial behaviour. Perhaps that is from a sense of parental loyalty to the ASBO, but it is certainly not the result of credible analysis of the reforms we propose.
	On examination, it can be seen that in recent years there has been a significant decline in the use of the ASBO. That is essentially because it can take months to secure an order and because, once obtained, over half of all orders are breached. For some, the ASBO became a badge of honour rather than an instrument for changing behaviour, which does not suggest it was an unalloyed success. In contrast, the criminal behaviour order and the new injunction may contain, as well as restrictions, positive requirements to address offending behaviour. As a purely civil order, a part 1 injunction may be granted by a court on the basis of evidence judged to the civil standard of proof, thereby significantly speeding up and simplifying the application process.
	Moreover, in the event that either the order or the injunction is breached, both will attract tough penalties—up to and including a custodial sentence. Far from weakening the current powers, we are replacing them with powers that will be speedier to obtain, have a wider reach and, crucially, be more effective in addressing the underlying problems.

Julian Huppert: The Home Secretary is right that ASBOs did not have the desired effect, but I am concerned about clause 17 on naming and shaming children and young people involved in such behaviour. Will she confirm that the Government’s intention is that young people should be named—in breach of the normal principles—only where absolutely necessary and that it will not become a routine step?

Theresa May: We think it is right that the power should be available, but of course we would expect it to be used proportionately. We would expect the courts to adopt such an approach.
	Part 6 provides for the community remedy and community trigger, which will put victims at the heart of the response to low-level crime and antisocial behaviour. The community remedy will give victims a powerful voice in determining the appropriate punishment to be attached to an out-of-court disposal. The community trigger will ensure an effective power to compel local agencies to review their response to repeated instances of antisocial behaviour. The public have a right to expect an appropriate and proportionate response to each reported incident.

Yvette Cooper: Will the Home Secretary confirm that in the areas where the community trigger was piloted there were 44,000 incidents of antisocial behaviour, but that the trigger was successfully activated only 13 times? Does she regard that as a success for the pilots?

Theresa May: The whole point about our approach is that we expect the police and other relevant agencies to act when an instance of antisocial behaviour is reported to them. As I am sure hon. Members across the House will have experienced, all too often several instances will be reported without any action appearing to be taken. The community trigger will ensure that a community can get a response. I would hope and expect that the community trigger was not necessary in many instances, because the police and other agencies had reacted to the first report, rather than waiting for several.

Yvette Cooper: If the Home Secretary is right that the trigger will guarantee a more rapid response, why does the Bill say it will happen only when there have been at least three complaints, which means that there could be five, 10 or as many as the local police and crime commissioner and council decide?

Theresa May: The reason is simple: the Government believe in local discretion in some areas. There is a fundamental difference between the Government and the Opposition over the ability of local areas and police and crime commissioners to be involved in determining what is right for their circumstances and local area. As the right hon. Lady says, we have put a figure in the Bill to indicate when we think a trigger would be appropriate, but it would then be down to the local area to determine. For some time, the Opposition have been saying that the fact that there have not been many instances of community triggers is somehow a failure. Actually, we want antisocial behaviour dealt with on the first report, rather than people waiting and feeling that they have to use the community trigger.

Nick de Bois: Does my right hon. Friend accept that in some instances severe antisocial behaviour leads almost to a fear of reporting incidents, and will she therefore welcome the idea that councillors, MPs and third parties may implement the trigger under those circumstances?

Theresa May: I understand the point my hon. Friend is making. The point about the community trigger is that it is not just about the individual on the receiving end of antisocial behaviour. It is called the community trigger precisely because others in the community may be able to exercise it, as opposed to the individual who has been subjected to such behaviour.
	Where local agencies respond effectively, few victims would need to resort to using the trigger, so it was not surprising that the recent pilots showed relatively few people taking advantage of it. When agencies fail to act, it should be possible for persistent antisocial behaviour to be dealt with and for a response to be required from the relevant agencies. That is real empowerment for victims and contrasts with the Labour party’s proposal of a 24-hour guarantee, which in practice may amount to no more than an e-mail acknowledging a complaint. The arrival of an e-mail telling someone that their complaint has been logged is of little comfort, and still less use to anyone suffering from a failure to do anything about the antisocial behaviour that is blighting their lives.
	For many, owning a dog will be a source of companionship and, in the case of working dogs, valued support and assistance. However, where owners do not take responsibility for their dogs—by failing to clear up after them or to ensure they are properly trained and socialised—those dogs can become a menace, spoiling local amenities and putting people at risk of harm. The Bill tackles irresponsible dog owners in two ways. First, it strengthens the provisions in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, to which hon. Members have referred. In particular, we are extending the offence of having a dog that is dangerously out of control in a public place to cover all places. That will mean that the police can take action when a person is attacked by a dog in the home. The Bill also provides that an attack on an assistance dog is an aggravated offence under the 1991 Act.
	Secondly, through the new flexible powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, the police and local authorities will be able to take preventive measures to tackle specific local issues. My hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) and for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), as well as other hon. Members, have argued for a bespoke “dog control notice”, but such an approach would once again lead us down the road of having a plethora of narrowly focused, inflexible powers to deal with particular problems. Although the provisions in parts 1 to 4 of the Bill do not provide for dog control notices in name, they provide for them in substance. For example, it would be open to the police or local council to issue a community protection notice against the owner of an aggressive dog. Such a notice could include a requirement to attend training classes, and keep the dog muzzled and on a lead in a public place. Alternatively, a public spaces protection order could prohibit all dogs from a particular locality, such as a children’s play area. Given the ability to use such powers to target specific dog-related issues, I hope the House will accept that there is simply no need for a separate dog control notice.

Anne McIntosh: When we were in opposition there was a clear understanding that antisocial behaviour orders were not up to the job, as my right hon. Friend has said. So that the House can have a clear understanding, can she explain the difference between dog control notices, which seem to operate so effectively in Scotland, and the notices that form part of this Bill?

Theresa May: What I am trying to explain to the House is that the new orders and powers we are introducing in this legislation will make it possible to take the sort of effective action that can be taken under a dog control notice, albeit without having to introduce something that is specifically called a dog control notice, with limits around that. The flexibility will be there because we are introducing wider powers, but they can be used to address the specific issue of dangerous dogs and their behaviour.

Luciana Berger: I thank the Home Secretary for kindly giving way. I share the sentiment expressed by many Members, including the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, that the proposals in the Bill are woefully inadequate. On prevention, can the Home Secretary share with the House why the police do not support the proposals in the Bill?

Theresa May: I do not believe that the proposal to extend the offence of having a dog that is dangerously out of control from public spaces to all places, so that it covers private places as well, or that ensuring that it is possible under the new flexible powers for preventive action to be taken—I have given some examples—is, as the hon. Lady describes, “woefully inadequate”. What we are doing in this Bill is setting out a set of clear, flexible arrangements that can be used to ensure the sort of control of dogs that, I am sure, not just she, but other Members of this House wish to see.

Julie Hilling: I thank the Home Secretary for giving way yet again. My question is about resourcing for such orders. If the control of dogs is simply subsumed into a raft of antisocial behaviour issues, how will she ensure that it has the priority it needs, with 210,000 or more attacks taking place each year?

Theresa May: I realise that the hon. Lady had a very sad case in her constituency in relation to dogs acting in a private place, and there have sadly been a number of other such cases. The Government have responded by introducing this new power, but dealing with the issue will come down to decisions that will be taken at a local level. Decisions will be taken by the police, local authorities and the agencies working together when the problem of a dangerous dog has been identified. The point about these powers is that they are sufficiently flexible to enable people to take a decision about what will work and what action needs to be taken in a particular circumstance. The fact that we have not attached the words “dog control” to the powers in the Bill does not mean that they will not be there. I believe they will be.
	Part 8 targets the middlemen responsible for supplying illegal firearms to street gangs and organised crime groups. Thankfully, firearms offences are relatively rare, but the police still recorded more than 5,000 of them
	in 2012. We need to target those who, through their callous disregard for the lives of others, hire out guns as if they were just another tool. The Bill will accordingly introduce a new offence of possession of a firearm for sale or transfer. That offence, together with the existing offences dealing with illegal importation, exportation and manufacture, will be subject to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The Select Committee on Home Affairs has addressed this issue in the past. Under the arrangements we are introducing in the Bill, those who supply illegal weapons will be dealt with. Morally, they are every bit as culpable as those who pull the trigger, and they should therefore face the same penalties.
	Part 9 deals with one of the manifestations of modern-day slavery: forced marriage. This country is a world leader in tackling this horrendous practice, including through the exemplary work of the forced marriage unit and a number of charities working in this field. The introduction of the civil forced marriage protection order has afforded some protection to victims and potential victims, but people who seek to consign their victims to a life of miserable servitude should face the full rigour of the criminal law. The new offences of forced marriage and of breach of a protection order will act as a deterrent and ensure that those found guilty of such practices face fitting punishment.

Alok Sharma: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is incredibly important for the wider public—and, indeed, everyone in this House—to understand that there is a clear difference between an arranged marriage, where there is consent on the part of both parties, and a forced marriage, which is wrong on every level? It is absolutely right that the Bill includes proposals to deal with that.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an important and valid point. All of us who talk about this issue should be clear about the difference and careful in the language we use. As he says, there is a real difference between an arranged marriage, where there has been consent, and a forced marriage, where there has not.
	Part 10 contains a number of important policing reforms. First, it transfers to the College of Policing key statutory functions that are commensurate with, and appropriate to, its role in setting standards in policing. It will fall to the college to determine such matters as the qualifications for the appointment and promotion of police officers, and to issue codes of practice. In the longer term, we are continuing to explore how best to enshrine the college’s independence in law. This is properly a matter for debate in the context of the Bill, and I have no doubt it will be the subject of further discussion in Committee.

Keith Vaz: I am most grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way a second time. Is she as concerned as I am that the cost of a certificate in knowledge of policing will be £1,000? Does she think that will have an impact on her desire, and that of the whole House, to increase diversity in policing?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman has cited a figure concerning the work being done by the College of Policing, but it is for the college to determine what requirements it will put in place for individuals regarding their initial ability to operate as a police officer, and the
	development they need to undertake as they progress through the ranks and acquire the necessary skills. It will be for the college to look carefully at the balance that will need to be struck to ensure that people can undertake that training and not be put off doing so. I believe that the College of Policing represents an important development in the policing landscape. As well as setting standards for training, development and skills, it will be a body in which best practice can be shared between police forces. That will have an impact on the ability of the police to fight crime.
	On police reform, this part of the Bill will further strengthen the capability of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. I have already mentioned that we will build up the commission’s capacity by transferring resources from forces’ professional standards departments, but we also need to ensure that the IPCC has the appropriate remit and powers to operate effectively. Critically, the Bill will ensure that the IPCC has oversight of complaints made against those who are contracted to provide front-line services on behalf of the police.

Nicola Blackwood: I very much welcome the extension of the IPCC’s powers to include private contractors. That will become increasingly important, but will that increase in powers include an ability to interview such contractors under caution?

Theresa May: I will need to come back to my hon. Friend on that point. I do not think that we go into quite that issue in the Bill. The Bill will give the IPCC the powers, but there will obviously be subsidiary ways of operating in relation to this. I will look into the point for her. That is me standing here at the Front Bench and being honest!
	This part of the Bill will also require forces, police and crime commissioners and others to respond promptly and publicly to IPCC recommendations. Also, as recommended by Tom Winsor, we shall replace the existing cumbersome and ineffective police negotiating machinery. The new police remuneration review body will help to ensure that we can deliver pay and conditions that are fair to police officers and to the taxpayer.
	We are also building on the role of police and crime commissioners as local victims’ champions by conferring on them new powers to commission victims’ services. PCCs are best placed to determine the needs of victims in their communities, and they should be empowered to provide the appropriate support. Finally in this part of the Bill, we will continue the work that we started in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to ensure that counter-terrorism powers protect the public, but that they do so in a fair and proportionate manner. As David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorist legislation, has reaffirmed, the port and border security powers in the Terrorism Act 2000 are
	“an essential tool in the protection of the inhabitants of this country from terrorism”.
	Reducing the maximum period of detention from nine to six hours and providing for persons detained at ports to have access to legal advice will ensure that these powers can continue to be exercised proportionately.
	We have long needed to make changes to the Extradition Act 2003 in order to make it operate in a fairer and more efficient fashion. Part 11 of the Bill introduces a number of such changes. They are in line with
	recommendations made in Sir Scott Baker’s independent review of our extradition arrangements and build on the introduction of a forum bar to extradition, which we enacted in the last Session. Among other things, the Bill addresses the current unfairness that can arise from the strict operation of the time limits for serving an appeal against extradition.
	The Baker review also confirmed that some of the concerns that have been expressed, including by a number of my Hon. Friends, about the proportionality of the European arrest warrant were well founded. As the House will know, this is one of the pre-Lisbon policing and criminal justice measures that we are examining to determine whether it is in the best interests of the British people to continue to be a party to the current arrangements. I hope to make a statement to the House soon about the conclusions of that review and the 2014 decision.

Yvette Cooper: Will the Home Secretary confirm that about 900 suspected foreign criminals were deported under the European arrest warrant last year? Does she not think that quite a good thing?

Theresa May: It is important that we have the powers that we need to deal with criminality. I am on record as saying that we need to see the deportation and extradition of foreign criminals, but it is also right for the Government —and, in due course, this House—to look at whether the current arrangements are appropriate. Concerns have been raised, not only by Members of Parliament but by Sir Scott Baker, about a number of issues relating to the European arrest warrant, and it is absolutely right that the Government should look at them.
	Finally, I want to draw the House’s attention to a couple of the provisions in part 12 of the Bill. One way in which we can free up resources is by increasing the number of police-led prosecutions. Having to pass low-level offences to the Crown Prosecution Service wastes police time. The police already deal with more than 500,000 cases a year in which people plead guilty. Under the provisions in this part, up to a further 50,000 prosecutions for low-level shoplifting offences will be able to be handled by the police, empowering front-line officers and bringing swifter justice for retailers.
	In this part of the Bill, we have also clarified the test for determining eligibility for compensation when someone has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice. The absence of a clear statutory definition of what amounts to a miscarriage of justice for these purposes has led to repeated legal challenges and shifting case law. As well as providing greater certainty, the new statutory test will ensure that compensation is paid only to those who are clearly innocent.
	Since the day I was appointed Home Secretary, I have had one simple priority for the police: to cut crime. The Bill will help to ensure that the police, working in partnership with others and focusing on the rights of victims and communities, can continue to do precisely that. I commend the Bill to the House.

Yvette Cooper: We have another parliamentary Session and another Home Office Christmas tree Bill. Last year’s Bill had a
	bit of crime, a bit of judicial reform, a bit of extradition and a bit of drugs. This year’s has a bit on police standards, a bit on guns and a bit on dogs, but in none of those areas does it go far enough. The Christmas tree decorations cannot hide the fact that the Bill is weak on tackling antisocial behaviour, at a time when the Office for National Statistics shows concern among the public that antisocial behaviour is going up.
	There are areas of the Bill that we will support, as well as areas in which we want the Government to go further. We called for the Independent Police Complaints Commission to cover private companies, and we are glad that those provisions are in the Bill. We support the measures relating to the College of Policing, too, although we believe that the Government should go further on police standards. We agree with the Home Affairs Select Committee that new firearms offences are needed for possession of firearms with intent to supply, and we are glad that they are in the Bill.
	On forced marriage, we agree that it should never be tolerated. It is a terrible violation and can destroy people’s lives. The law should be strengthened to build on the work done to stop forced marriage, although the Government need to work with experts to get the detail right and also to ensure that cuts to refuges or to legal aid do not undermine the support that victims need in practice.
	The central claim for the Bill, as we can see from its title, is that it will tackle antisocial behaviour, and here there are many false promises. Three years ago, the Home Secretary said that she was determined to take action on antisocial behaviour, yet the figures from the Office for National Statistics show that eight out of 10 people say antisocial behaviour is going up, that nearly half say it is going up a lot, and that only one in 10 say it is going down in their area.
	So what have the Government done to help? They have cut the community safety funding by nearly two thirds, even though those are the funds that help communities to pay for extra police community support officers, for youth activities, for action against gangs, for extra street lighting and for CCTV. This is the crime prevention investment that helps to save money and police time later on, yet the Government have cut it severely. They have cut it not just by 20% in line with police cuts, or even by 23% in line with the Home Office budget, but by over 60%.
	This is all happening at a time when the Government are cutting 15,000 police officers, including more than 7,000 from the most visible units of all. The Home Secretary claimed earlier, in Home Office questions, that a higher proportion of police officers were now on the front line. However, a slightly higher proportion of a much lower number still means fewer police officers, and the proportion who are visible has gone down from 12.3% to 11.8%. The Government are not just cutting police numbers; they are making things harder for them, too.

Alok Sharma: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way, but I really wish she would not keep undermining the police force, which is doing a fantastic job. In the Thames valley, we have had crime down and detection rates up year after year. Why can she not just acknowledge that we have police forces that are doing a great job in some difficult circumstances?

Yvette Cooper: Police officers certainly are working extremely hard in very difficult circumstances. Many of them are finding themselves stretched in very different directions. Chief constables are also working immensely hard to keep their area safe and to reduce crime. However, we need to recognise that at the same time as 15,000 police officers are being cut from the force, we are seeing 30,000 fewer crimes being solved and a big increase in the use of community resolutions for serious and violent crimes. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I find that to be a matter of serious concern. It is important to get justice for victims and that is being put at risk by the Government’s approach.

Julian Huppert: It is always very tempting to offer to spend more money to fix all sorts of problems. Is the right hon. Lady making a commitment that the Labour party would spend a huge amount more money on the police and where would that cash come from?

Yvette Cooper: We have said very clearly that we would have reduced the policing budget by around 12% rather than 20% over the course of the current spending review. That would not have led to the reduction of 15,000 police officers over the course of this Parliament. I would also say to the hon. Gentleman that he promised to increase the number of police officers by 3,000—it was in his party’s manifesto. That is what he called for, and he has done the absolute opposite. Government Members have not only reduced police officers on the street; they are making it more difficult for them to fight crime.

Robert Flello: On that point, when I talk to police officers in Stoke-on-Trent, who are doing a fine job in extremely difficult circumstances because of all the cuts, and not just to their positions—[Interruption.] I wish the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) would stop chuntering while I am trying to ask a question. Police officers already find themselves in difficult circumstances, yet they also tell me that the toolkit of the various powers available to them is being reduced at the same time. How can that help?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Looked at across the board—whether it be what is happening with DNA or CCTV—Government Members are making it harder for the police to do their job.
	After the London riots, CCTV helped to secure huge numbers of convictions. We all know from our constituencies of communities and estates that have worked hard to get CCTV and how it has helped to provide security in those areas, cutting down on antisocial behaviour and abuse. Yet the freedom of information requests put in by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) have shown that one in five councils is now cutting CCTV under a Home Secretary who is wrapping CCTV in a whole load of new red tape. There are already safeguards for residents’ privacy, but the Home Secretary wants a whole load of extra checks, rules and administration just to make sure. The impact assessment produced by the Home Office has found that these new regulations will cost the police and councils £14 million to comply with—and it could be as much as £30 million at a time when resources are so stretched. The Home Secretary, who has already wasted £100 million
	on the November police and crime commissioner elections now wants to waste up to £30 million making it harder, not easier, to get CCTV. The Home Secretary welcomed extra CCTV in her own constituency three years ago; she should stop making it harder for everyone else to get it.

Luciana Berger: Does my right hon. Friend share my pride in the fact that City Watch in Liverpool does such a formidable job with its extensive CCTV network, which is visited by people not only from other cities across the UK, but from across Europe because it is so advanced? It has managed to prosecute people successfully for the crimes that they have committed. Would it not be a shame if other cities and places across the UK could not benefit in the same way as the people of Liverpool have, making ours one of the safest cities in the country?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. We have seen the impact in a whole series of areas—as I said, during the London riots, for example. In fact, at the time of the riots, the Prime Minister said of CCTV:
	“We are making technology work for us…And as I said yesterday, no phoney human rights concerns about publishing photographs will get in the way of bringing these criminals to justice.”
	It would seem, however, that the Home Secretary is tying herself up in exactly those so-called “phoney human rights concerns” that she has pledged to abolish.
	This Bill will not make it easier to tackle antisocial behaviour. The Government are indeed making changes to powers: antisocial behaviour injunctions will be replaced with crime prevention injunctions; public space orders will be replaced with public space protection orders; acceptable behaviour agreements will be replaced with acceptable behaviour contracts; premises closure notices will be replaced by closure notices; and noise abatement notices will be replaced by community protection notices. No set of powers will be perfect, and everyone wants to make sure that the system is as swift and easy to use as possible. The trouble is that the Bill will not achieve that. There is a lot of changing of names and a lot of tinkering at the margins. Some changes may help and make it simpler; others may make it harder while agencies work out how the new processes are supposed to work.
	Housing associations, for example, have warned that it will take five years to develop the case law for the new powers to work. The Government’s own figures admit that it will require at least 150,000 hours of police training to use these powers, even though many of them are remarkably similar to the old powers they replaced. The fact is that communities, councils, housing associations, the police and the courts need a wide range of tools to deal with very different problems. The risk for the Home Secretary is that, by trying to squeeze a wide range of problems into a narrow number of powers, she may make it harder to achieve that.
	On the one hand, many organisations have written to The Times today to say that they fear this will mean too heavy-handed treatment for the lowest level of antisocial behaviour or nuisance, while on the other hand police officers have raised with me their concern that the powers will not be strong enough to deal with the worst problems. The one-size-fits-all approach has risks.
	We need early intervention. We do not want to see young people unnecessarily criminalised or dragged through the courts for low-level problems when it can be sorted out on the spot. We do want to know that persistent, aggressive antisocial behaviour that can terrorise neighbours or residents will be dealt with properly, including by criminal sanctions where needed. Yes, we should have community resolutions and remedies for antisocial behaviour, but they must not be abused.
	We know that community resolutions are now being used for serious and violent crimes, including for domestic violence. Last year, community resolutions were used for 33,000 serious and violent crimes, including in 2,500 domestic violence cases, where the Association of Chief Police Officers was clear that they should not be used.

Alok Sharma: The right hon. Lady is talking about the views of the police, so let me quote what ACPO said:
	“In broad terms the proposals contained within the draft bill are practical, positive, reasonable and balanced.”
	What is there not to like?

Yvette Cooper: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that ACPO, like chief constables across the country, will make the best of the approach put to them, but many practitioners across the country have raised the concern that, with changing case law, it will take some time to be able to use the powers as effectively as the previous powers were used.
	The Bill does nothing to make sure that community remedies and resolutions are focused on low-level crime. It does nothing to ensure that proper restorative justice, putting victims at the heart of the process, will be pursued or guaranteed. Instead, it risks creating loopholes to let offenders off because overstretched councils and police have not had the resources to sort the problem out.

Robert Flello: Does it not send a worrying message to the families of the, on average, two women who die every single week as a result of domestic homicide when 2,500 cases of domestic violence will be treated in this way? Does that not somehow suggest that their loved ones do not count? What sort of message does that send?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Community resolutions and the purpose of the restorative justice approach, which can be valuable in dealing with antisocial behaviour, are about getting offenders to say sorry to the victims and make it up to them. Yet that is exactly what we do not want in domestic violence cases. We do not want a police-sanctioned process of the perpetrator somehow apologising and making it up to the victim, who will then be expected to accept and go along with the apology, as if that makes it all right. Community resolutions should not be used for domestic violence cases. It is still a serious matter of concern that they continue to be used, despite ACPO’s guidance to the contrary. This is an area where the Home Office needs to step in and make sure that stronger guidance is sent out to chief constables and police forces across the country to make it very clear that community resolutions should not be used for domestic violence.
	There are many cases in which ASBOs are not appropriate, but it must also be said that in some of the most serious examples of repeated abuse, they have made a significant difference. For example, an aggressive thug who had repeatedly intimidated residents and shopkeepers in a town centre, had repeatedly ignored warnings from the police and the courts, and had breached his ASBO was taken to the criminal courts and given a custodial sentence, but under the new system, he would only be served with an injunction. The council would have to pursue expensive civil action to enforce the injunction, and there would be no criminal offence.
	Nor will the community trigger solve the problem. The Home Secretary has made the grand promise that
	“The trigger will give victims and communities the right to demand that agencies who had ignored a problem must take action.”
	However, the trigger is not strong enough to help. For a start—as I pointed out to the Home Secretary earlier—although the Bill specifies that there must have been “at least three…complaints”, the number could be far higher. Police and crime commissioners could decide on five, 10 or 20. The Home Secretary said that it would be a matter for local discretion, but that local discretion already exists. If it were simply a matter for local discretion, she would allow people to choose to set up community triggers, and she would not be legislating. Either she thinks that this is a matter for local discretion and it is up to those people to decide, or she thinks that there should be minimum standards, but something as weak and wishy-washy as “at least three…complaints” is not really a minimum standard at all. This is a con. Even if the magic threshold is passed, what are residents entitled to? A review. How reassuring.
	In the five areas that have piloted the community trigger, where there have been 44,000 incidents of antisocial behaviour, the trigger has been successfully activated 13 times—in response to not just less than 1% of complaints, not just less than 0.1%, but 0.03%. This measure will not have a big impact on the antisocial behaviour problems that persist in communities throughout the country.
	When the Home Secretary made her speech on antisocial behaviour three years ago, she said:
	“The solution to your community’s problems will not come from officials sitting in the Home Office working on the latest national action plan.”
	That is certainly true. If the Bill is the nearest that the Home Office gets to its latest national action plan, it will make it harder, not easier, to solve community problems.
	There are two respects in which the Bill has missed the opportunity to deal with some serious problems, and I urge Ministers to look at those again. The first is the problem of dangerous dogs, a subject on which a series of interventions were made on the Home Secretary’s speech. We support the measures that will extend the law to private property, but that is not enough. As the Home Secretary will know, the number of attacks has been rising, and there have been tragic fatal attacks. In the last two years, we have seen killings such as those of 18-month-old Zumer Ahmed and 71-year-old Gloria Knowles, who was mauled by dogs. Last week I met the family of 14-year-old Jade Anderson, who was tragically
	killed in an attack by dangerous dogs. I pay tribute to Jade’s family, who are campaigning for the strengthening of the law.
	The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, a number of charities, and the families of victims killed in dangerous dog attacks want dog control notices to be introduced. I listened carefully to what the Home Secretary said, but the problem is that experts have not been convinced by her argument that wider powers can be used, and that it will not take long to build up case law and make it easy for those powers to be applied. Of course dog control notices will not stop every attack, but they could make it easier for earlier preventive action to be taken. They are working in Scotland, and I urge the Home Secretary to consider the issue again during the Bill’s passage.
	I hope that the Home Secretary will think again about firearms as well. As she will know, last year Susan McGoldrick, her sister Alison Turnbull and her niece Tanya were murdered by Susan’s partner, Michael Atherton, with a shotgun that he was licensed to own. Michael Atherton had a history of violence and abuse towards Susan McGoldrick, and he should never have been allowed to own a gun. Alison’s son, Bobby Tumbull, is campaigning for a change in the law.
	The Home Office has rightly strengthened the guidance for gun applications, but it does not go far enough. It relies on interviews with family members who may still be living in fear of abuse. Why should anyone with a history of domestic violence be allowed to own a gun? Why should that guidance not be underpinned by legislation? We cannot legislate in Parliament to prevent every tragedy or every terrible crime, but we can seek to learn lessons when tragedies happen. We can listen to victims and their families, and we can work with them to make things safer in future.
	We will not vote against the Bill’s Second Reading, but we think that it needs to be stronger. People want stronger action against antisocial behaviour, rather than the watering down of powers. They want more protection for victims, not just delayed reviews and loopholes for offenders if police resources are tight. They want more action against domestic violence, and more action against dangerous dogs. That requires more action from the Home Office, and more action from the Home Secretary. They need to do more to support communities, and they should do so in this Bill.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I suggest that Back Benchers speak for about 12 minutes? I do not intend to enforce that limit, but I am sure that we can manage between us.

Kris Hopkins: I welcome the Bill, and congratulate the Home Secretary on her introduction of it.
	Let me begin by making a comment about the issue of forced marriage, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma). My constituency contains a large Kashmiri Muslim community, and I believe that we should not tolerate forced marriages.
	It is important to separate that issue from the issue of arranged marriages, a process in which people should be supported.
	Today, as Members will know, the Home Affairs Committee published a report on the sexual exploitation of children, including street grooming. The Committee’s Chairman, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), said, in what I consider to have been very carefully chosen words,
	“Children only have one chance at childhood, once that childhood is stolen by the horrific crime of sexual exploitation, it cannot be returned. Protection of these vulnerable children must be our first priority.”
	I am extremely grateful for that timely report, because it puts into context an issue that I believe the Bill can begin to address.
	In March this year, Shazad Rehman and Bilal Hussain were imprisoned for a total of 36 years for drugging and raping schoolgirls whom they had picked up on the streets of Keighley. The two men committed some of their hideous offences, unchallenged, in local hotels. More recently, in May, seven men were found guilty at the Old Bailey of 43 charges relating to six victims aged between 11 and 15. The men plied their victims with drink and class A drugs, took them to guesthouses and bed-and-breakfast establishments, and—again, unchallenged —raped and tortured those children.

Nicola Blackwood: As my hon. Friend will know, during the grooming inquiry the Home Affairs Committee has heard some harrowing evidence of incidents such as those that he has described. In Oxford, we have found it very difficult to come to terms with the fact that such horrific crimes can happen in our own community. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time for every area in the United Kingdom to accept that it is not immune from child sexual exploitation, and to ensure that it protects vulnerable children and prosecutes any criminals who seek to target those young children?

Kris Hopkins: I entirely agree. I know from my hon. Friend’s work on the Committee, and from the terrible issues that she has had to face in her constituency, that she understands the situation that confronts many communities.
	The investigation to which I referred, and the Keighley conviction, mirrored investigations in Rochdale, Derby and Telford, in that hotels and bed-and-breakfast establishments enabled the crime to be committed.
	Since the briefing given to me by police officers in Keighley, Detective Chief Inspector Darren Minton from the Bradford safeguarding unit has contacted the police forces of North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, the Met police, Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Thames Valley. All have, or have had, numerous or significant numbers of child sexual exploitation cases in which hotels, bed and breakfasts and guest houses have been used.
	With the support of my local police officers, who are on the front line trying to tackle these criminals and attempting to protect these children, I am asking the Home Office to consider introducing in the Bill, first, a new police power to require specific hotels or B and Bs to collect the details of identity and proof of relationship of any persons under the age of 18 who book into the accommodation. Secondly, that information should be immediately passed on to the police. The premises
	would be identified by past intelligence or conviction, or present intelligence or investigation. Authorisation would be given by a county court judge in chambers. It would not be a blanket request—it would be about specific accommodation based on knowledge.

Nicola Blackwood: My hon. Friend is being incredibly generous in giving way again. I strongly endorse his proposals. He will be aware that the Home Affairs Committee report found that there was one particular problem which meant that victims fell through the cracks: the failure to share data. The proposal to ensure, wherever we can, that data are shared effectively so that victims do not fall through the cracks should be considered and implemented as soon as possible.

Kris Hopkins: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. I have asked my local police officers whether there are any laws or measures in place that could be used to do what I have proposed. They do not believe that there are such powers in place. However, I am willing to be—

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is making a powerful contribution. Certainly I am happy for the Home Office to take away his proposal and consider it seriously. We will come back to him on the matter, but he has made an important point about the relevance of those places to what is happening in terms of child sexual exploitation. We are happy to look at his proposal.

Kris Hopkins: To that end, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak and I look forward to working with the Home Office on the issue.

Keith Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) in this important debate. I thank him for his kind comments about the Home Affairs Committee’s report on child grooming, which was published this morning. I pay tribute to all members of the Committee, who have worked so hard on the report, especially the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), who originally suggested that the Committee conduct the inquiry and who has been so assiduous in helping us to determine which witnesses should give evidence and in preparing the final report. It would not have been as powerful or important had it not been for what she has done.
	I, too, am very interested in the hon. Gentleman’s proposals. He is right that this is one of the areas we have looked at. At the moment, the anecdotal evidence and the evidence of people who see with their own eyes that there is a problem are not sufficient to catch the terrible perpetrators of these horrific crimes. If we had legislation, that would help the situation enormously.
	I am glad that there is agreement between the Front-Bench teams that there will be no vote on this measure. I agree that it is an important measure, but I also agree with the shadow Home Secretary that there are ways we can improve the Bill. It is important when we have such Bills that we use the Committee stage to do that. That will help to make it an even stronger and more powerful Bill.
	I am glad that the Select Committee had the opportunity to scrutinise the draft Anti-social Behaviour Bill in a number of sessions. That happened not only because that was the decision of the Select Committee but because of the case of Fiona Pilkington, who committed suicide in October 2007 with her daughter after suffering years of abuse from local youths. The Independent Police Complaints Commission found in May 2011 that she had contacted the police 33 times in seven years. They failed to act accordingly and, as a result, she committed suicide with her daughter. I am glad that the new Leicester chief constable has changed things. Simon Cole has made this one of his priorities and we have accepted his assurance that that kind of situation will never happen again. Obviously, if we pass the Bill, that assurance will be even stronger.
	Sadly, however, even though we had the case of Fiona Pilkington, four years later we had the inquest into the death of Dr Suzanne Dow, a lecturer in French at Nottingham university, who killed herself in 2011 after suffering antisocial behaviour from the crack house next door to her. The council ignored her pleas for over a year.
	In January, the Select Committee recommended that there should be a national backstop of three complaints to set off the community trigger. We believe that that would guard against people like Fiona Pilkington slipping through the net. Of course the Home Secretary is right: we also have to have a degree of local accountability. That has been one of the great features of her term as Home Secretary: she sets guidelines and a vision, and then she leaves it very much up to local people to complete the vision. She has done that with police and crime commissioners, to which I will come later. However, we believe strongly that, unless we have a national backstop, a figure that everyone could sign up to, there is a risk that locally people could make their own decisions, and we would end up with the trigger not being as great in Devon and Cornwall as it was in Somerset, Leicestershire and Derbyshire. That is why we felt that the trigger was important. I hope that, as it scrutinises the Bill, the Committee will look seriously at the Select Committee’s proposals. I am convinced that they will strengthen the Bill. That was the unanimous view of the Select Committee.
	We should also, in looking at the Bill, express our concern about the cuts to youth services. It is right that we should be wary of young people who are involved in antisocial behaviour, but it is also important that we should not stigmatise them. A letter in The Times today was signed by practically everybody who is anybody in the voluntary sector that deals with these issues. It said that an injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance could be used differently in different hands.
	The annoyance and nuisance I feel would be different from that felt by someone else. I am 57 years of age this year—[Interruption.] Yes, it is true; just checking whether the House was still awake. The annoyance I feel in my office in Norman Shaw North may be different from that felt by younger Government Members with offices in Norman Shaw North who have just been elected. They may find the nuisance and annoyance not as great as I would because of my age. The same could be said for my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), who has an office next to mine. His threshold may be different even from mine. We should
	look at the matter because the thresholds are different. It is important to read what those who signed the letter say. At the end they say:
	“The coalition and opposition should listen to the call by the cross-party Home Affairs Committee to ‘end the arms race’ against Anti-social Behaviour by setting reasonable limits on the behaviour covered by the new powers.”
	I have not quoted that just because they praise the Committee, but because we must look at this. On 7 January this year at 4 o’clock my constituent Rajesh Devaliya was ambushed by four young people in St Mark’s in Leicester, where he lives with his elderly father. The police said the young perpetrators of this crime had nothing else to do. The police were not condoning the crime, of course; they were talking about the cuts to local services in St Mark’s
	I warmly welcome what the Home Secretary is proposing in clauses 100 and 101. Clause 100 introduces the new offence of possessing prohibited firearms with intent to supply, and clause 101 increases the penalty for unlawful importation of prohibited firearms from 10 years to life. That is the right thing to do, of course. It was recommended by the Committee, and we are happy to support it, as it will serve to bring to book those who are supplying as well as those who are using.
	However, we looked at firearms two-and-a-half years ago, and we are concerned that two-and-a-half years on from our report the Home Secretary has not taken the opportunity this Bill presents to bring together the 34 separate pieces of legislation covering UK gun law. President Obama, in his bid to try to control firearms in the United States, is looking closely at what our country is doing as we have a better record than the United States of America, but it is important that we look at codifying and bringing all this legislation together.
	On 17 May the Select Committee recommended criminalising forced marriage. We take the point that it is quite different from arranged marriage. However, I must tell the Home Secretary that I am worried about the allegations database that she set up, which we will look at very closely in our next report. I have many constituents who complain that they are being abused by their spouses and have been tricked into getting married. They make their complaint to the Home Office and nothing happens. They are not informed because of the bizarre belief that they are third parties. I do not believe that someone who goes off to a foreign country and marries somebody there, and then brings them to this country so that they are only here because they brought them in, and who then complains that their spouse has abused the system and tricked them, is a third party. Of course they need to know whether the Home Office has removed them. We have had 28,000 allegations since the Prime Minister’s famous speech in London two years ago, when he asked people to report these issues, and 500 arrests have been made, but still the Home Office cannot tell us how many people have been removed.
	I have three final points, and I shall begin with the College of Policing. I know that the Home Secretary is not interested in legacy stuff, because I am sure she will be in post for a long time, but when her legacy is written up, the creation of the College of Policing—which I hope will be called the “Royal College of Policing”, as that will give an impetus and dignity to those we train as police officers—will be seen as an important feature of
	her new landscape for policing. However, she ought to have ensured that the chair of the college appointed the members of the board or had a part to play in that, rather than appointing all the members of the board and then appointing the chair. I know she had problems filling that post but they have been resolved, and she has now appointed an excellent chair. In order to give the chair greater importance, the chair could perhaps be allowed to work with board members to co-opt additional people on to the board, which is not doing very well in terms of diversity.
	I was there for the Emily Wilding Davison centenary celebrations with the Home Secretary and you, Mr Speaker, and I heard what the Home Secretary said about diversity. In fact, I think I may even have got one of the T-shirts that were on offer. Diversity is not an apparent feature of the College of Policing board, however. Moreover, I find it extraordinary that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who represents so many police officers, does not sit on the board, whereas the Association of Chief Police Officers does. I have nothing against that organisation sitting on the board, but the commissioner should, too.
	The Home Secretary still has not told us who will hold the integrity register for chief constables. She rightly announced that chief constables ought to have a register of gifts they receive and jobs they do, but after all these months she has still not told us where that register is going to sit. In her new landscape, she has so many new organisations to choose from, and one of them—perhaps the College of Policing, perhaps Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary—needs to hold the register in order to give it credibility. Although the Home Secretary did not like the idea of a register for police and crime commissioners, the Select Committee published one. PCCs were very upset, but the fact is we just published what they put on their websites or what they told us to put in. If we have registers for MPs, peers and chief constables, we should have one for PCCs. We must not leave that until the next election.
	The Home Secretary seemed a little puzzled about the cost of the certificate of knowledge in policing, or perhaps she was saying that is up to the College of Policing. We should, however, look carefully at the cost of a certificate, which is £1,000.
	On the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the Home Secretary has done everything we could have asked her to do in respect of our last report on that organisation. She did not quite deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), however.

Theresa May: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for mentioning the IPCC, because it enables me, if he will indulge me in this, to deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood). I have checked, and in cases of suspected criminality the extension of the IPCC oversight of private sector contractors will allow them to be interviewed under caution. I am grateful for the opportunity to put that on the record.

Keith Vaz: I am delighted that the Home Secretary has got that on the record, and I know that the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon will also be very pleased.
	The Committee said that the IPCC was woefully under-equipped and hamstrung by a lack of powers and resources. The Home Secretary has not given it all the powers we would have wanted, but she has certainly given it a lot of them. She does need to deal with the issue or resources, however. People tend to refer conduct issues to the IPCC. It is dealing with thousands of cases as a result of Hillsborough. It has an excellent new chair in Dame Anne Owers, and it has shown a real commitment to do good work in this area, but it cannot do that work unless it has the necessary resources to finish the job. We thank the Home Secretary for giving these powers, but we also say, “Let’s have the resources to go with them.”
	Finally, on extradition, we again have what the Select Committee recommended in our report on the subject. The forum bar has been enacted, and this will take it further. We need to stop having cases such as those involving Gary McKinnon and Richard O’Dwyer, which I know took up a huge amount of the Home Secretary’s time and the time of this House. I still think it should be up to the Home Secretary to make that decision, rather than give it to judges, because I think there are other considerations to take into account. I do not think that she or her successor if Labour wins the next election, the current shadow Home Secretary, are very keen to have the power to stop people’s extradition, but she is the Home Secretary and she should be making these decisions, not a judge. That question is for another day, however.
	In the end, we have a Bill that enacts a lot of what the Select Committee has recommended over the years. I think we need to improve parts of it, as the shadow Home Secretary has said, but I am glad we are not pressing the House to a Division on this important measure this evening.

Julian Huppert: I suspect that the Home Secretary has recently become used to me standing here criticising things she has done and highlighting where we have disagreed; I am delighted that today will not be another of those days. I am able to support much of what is in the Bill, and it is a great pleasure to follow the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), and to agree with him that it is excellent that it does not appear that there will be a Division on Second Reading, and that we can therefore proceed.
	There are good things in the Bill, such as the changes to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, bringing in private providers, which the Liberal Democrats have wanted for some time; stronger control sanctions against forced marriage; controls on firearms; the introduction of the College of Policing, which will be important for evidence-based policing; controls on dangerous dogs; and particularly protections for guide dogs, which I shall talk about later.
	At the core of the Bill, however, are the antisocial behaviour provisions. It is particularly welcome that the Bill underwent pre-legislative scrutiny by the Select Committee. I thank the Home Secretary for taking on board some of the suggestions that it made, although she did not take on board all of them. The principles
	are surely absolutely right. The simplification of the toolkit used to remedy antisocial behaviour, which can blight lives, even at a relatively low level, is welcome. It will produce a quicker and more coherent response, empowering police, local authorities and other agencies, so that they can deal with the problems far more effectively and efficiently. This issue is serious: there were 2.3 million reports of antisocial behaviour in 2012, although I suspect the vast majority of such incidents are never actually reported. We need a simple scheme to deal with that.
	I am also pleased to see the direction of travel and the move away from the automatic criminalisation of breaches, which in many cases gave ASBOs a poor reputation. We are moving a lot further and I am pleased also to see the introduction of positive requirements to try to help people out of the problem—we have argued for that for a long time and it has cross-party support. The Home Affairs Committee highlighted that the positive requirements
	“can help to achieve an outcome that satisfies victims and helps to mend the ways of perpetrators without exposing them to the criminal justice system.”
	That has to be what we all want. It was the aim of the acceptable behaviour contracts, and it is the right direction in which to be travelling. It also fits in well with the Government’s general approach to the criminal justice system, with a focus on rehabilitation. Rather than focusing on how we punish people, there is a focus on how we can prevent problems from happening in the first place. I am very pleased about all that. I could talk at great length about how excellent some of the provisions are, but the Home Secretary has done that, as have others.
	Further improvements could still be made in a couple of areas, and there are particular concerns about how the system will deal with young people. In looking at antisocial behaviour the focus has always ended up on young people; it is many people’s first encounter with the criminal justice system. Some 40% of ASBOs were issued to 10 to 17-year-olds, who comprise only 13% of the population, and a very large proportion of those people have mental health problems and learning difficulties, which is a serious concern.
	That situation was acknowledged in the antisocial behaviour White Paper, which stated:
	“There are strong links between anti-social or criminal behaviour and certain health needs.”
	However, the Bill does not yet contain enough to strengthen early intervention or ensure that a full health and social assessment is made to go with any of the orders that are available. I accept that that is not all about legislation; I hope that in Committee, or through comments from the Home Secretary, progress will be made to strengthen the arrangements, because we want to help people with mental health problems or learning difficulties, rather than putting them through an inappropriate route.
	As I mentioned when I intervened on the Home Secretary, I remain concerned about the naming and shaming of young people. Clause 17 would disapply section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which restricts reports on proceedings in which young people are concerned, in respect of injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance and criminal behaviour orders. That goes against the presumption of anonymity for children in criminal proceedings and is likely to hinder
	their successful rehabilitation, particularly in this age where people can say things online which can stay with people for ever. We want a chance for a young person who made an error at 14 to be able to have that removed very quickly. Article 40 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child clearly requires that a child accused of, or recognised as having infringed the law, must
	“have his or her privacy fully respected at all stages of the proceedings.”
	Both the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Human Rights Committee have expressed grave concerns about the privacy of children subject to ASBOs, and I am concerned about what may happen.
	I know the Government’s intention, as they have been clear in their response to the Home Affairs Committee and I am grateful for that. The intention is not simply a blanket naming and shaming of young people, and I pleased to be reassured about that. However, I want the right clarification to be given to judges. The Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) made the point well when he gave evidence to us, but there may well be some special cases where it is simply unreasonable to prevent a child from being able to do something if we cannot tell anybody that we have prevented them from doing it. I accept that there are such cases, but they should be seen as the exception. I want to develop the point implied by the Home Secretary that judges should use such an approach rarely and sparingly, where there is a good case for doing so. We want a
	“short, focused nudge for young people to set them on the right track, not a millstone that will weigh around their necks for years to come.”
	We have to ensure that the right guidance is in place, so that the provisions are used only when they have to be. Fitting in with the positive requirements will help with some of that.
	Many of the organisations we spoke to welcomed the general direction towards positive requirements but were concerned about the extra monitoring and the burdens of that. The Chair of the Select Committee was right to express concerns about the funding available. This is the best direction in which to go, but we need clarity on the funding. The Local Government Association, of which I have the great honour to be vice-president, has said:
	“Clarity is needed from the Home Office on the cost of imposing ‘positive requirements’”
	If they are not available, that could lead to breaches and to the whole system falling into the sort of disrepute that we saw with ASBOs. That is particularly so for children, where parental support may not be sufficient in many cases.
	On one issue there has been an arms race, with every Government trying to change the antisocial regime, lowering the standard of proof and widening the definitions. The Home Affairs Committee unanimously concluded;
	“This arms race must end.”
	The current definition of antisocial behaviour is behaviour that
	“caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress”.
	Clause 1 requires only that the conduct appears to be “capable” of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person, as the Chair of the Select Committee pointed out. I share the concerns of the Association of Chief
	Police Officers that that lower threshold could unnecessarily stigmatise and criminalise young people in particular. It is a broad definition. I dare say that I have occasionally done things that are “capable” of annoying other people in this Chamber; I am sure we all have.
	[Interruption.] 
	I am delighted to have the support of the Chair of the Select Committee. I would hope that the definition is not intended to cover such things; there has to be some sort of stronger level involved. I am pleased to see the move away from criminalisation, although some criminal sanctions will still be available, but I remain concerned about that definition.
	The safeguards in the Bill about criminalisation go a bit further. A court has to consider an injunction to be “just and convenient”, but there is nothing about proportionality or the need to demonstrate necessity. The Committee concluded:
	“For the IPNA, the threshold of ‘conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance’ is far too broad and could be applied even if there were no actual nuisance or annoyance whatsoever. A proportionality test and a requirement that either ‘intent or recklessness’ be demonstrated should be attached to the IPNA, as well as the requirement ‘that such an injunction is necessary to protect relevant persons from further anti-social acts by the respondent’.”
	That was agreed unanimously by the Committee, and I hope that the Home Secretary will examine the case for that more carefully and consider whether we could have some clarity. None of us wants these provisions to be used to deal with trivial behaviour. I have known constituents who do not like the fact that young people sit on a bench, but I hope that we would not want to introduce controls to deal with that if those young people are doing nothing else.
	I also have a few concerns about the provisions at the beginning of part 5, which would give landlords the power to evict a tenant when the tenant or a member of their household had been convicted of a serious offence nearby or of various other provisions. No flexibility is given for the judge to decide on that; it is an obligatory process. My concern is about the effects on the rest of a family when one of its members, be it a child or an adult, does something that we all agree is unacceptable. In particular, children may be made homeless as a result of the actions of other people that they could not control. Such concerns have been expressed by the Children’s Commissioner, and I hope that the Home Secretary will consider clarifying the arrangements, by changing where the grounds would be listed, to ensure that judges at least have the discretion to say, “In this case, it does not seem appropriate.” The LGA has highlighted that these powers could
	“result in displacement of the problem rather than solution”—
	none of us would want to leave children homeless. I hope that the Government will examine that.
	To conclude, I wish to talk about the issues relating to dangerous dogs. I want to emphasise how good it is that we are making progress, particularly on the serious issue of guide dogs. There were about 240 dog attacks on guide dogs between March 2011 to February 2013, which is about 10 a month. Last year, I met some of my visually impaired constituents and found out what it was like to have a guide dog: I was blindfolded and had to follow a dog around Cambridge. I spoke to my constituents about some of their cases. The big problem is that guide dogs are trained not to fight back or
	defend themselves; they are trained not to run away, but to get their owner away safely. My constituents told me about some brutal cases where the dog had been savaged in awful ways—their guts were hanging out, and so on—but had still tried to lead its owner away. Such attacks were also devastating for the owner, because it takes a long time to get used to a dog and they cannot simply be replaced; the emotional cost is huge, too. Five of the dogs attacked had to be withdrawn, costing the Guide Dogs charity £170,000—money which it simply does not have. I am really pleased that the first clause in part 7 makes it clear that attacks on guide dogs will be considered aggravated attacks, but we need to go much further.
	There are other bits of the Bill that I could talk about at great length, but some of them have already been touched on, and I am sure that they will be considered in Committee. This is a good Bill, but it could be tweaked slightly further to make it an excellent Bill. I am sure that that will be looked at in Committee.

Tessa Munt: I visited Glastonbury post office, which has been doing some fairly visionary work on what happens to post office staff when they are making deliveries. They made two points. First, being attacked by a dog in the communal area of a block of flats is not covered by the Bill. Secondly, there may be no remedy for those who are bitten while putting a letter or packet through a letterbox; if someone trespasses with their fingers, effectively, they may not be covered. I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that the Secretary of State might take this opportunity to remedy that drafting problem and make sure that the issue is sorted out.

Julian Huppert: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment; I am sure that the Home Secretary heard it. What my hon. Friend says seems sensible; we want to protect postal workers when they are posting leaflets. I have not checked the wording of the Bill, but if it is a problem, I hope that that can be addressed. The same would apply to those of us delivering leaflets. I have yet to be bitten by a dog, but I know that it happens to many of us too often. I hope that the Home Secretary will look at those suggestions to see whether we can sharpen up the provisions and make it an excellent Bill that we can be proud of for many years to come.

Gordon Marsden: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). I should like to associate myself with his concluding remarks about guide dogs, and to commend the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association for the spirited campaign it has led on the subject.
	It is a great pleasure to speak on a subject of obvious concern to everybody in the country. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, who spoke earlier, I have been in the House since 1997, and I can genuinely say that antisocial behaviour has been at the centre of my casework, both in terms of concerns that people have raised, and of the relief and respite that has been brought about. This is a continuing
	process; no Government have a monopoly on virtue or effectiveness. However, I want to emphasise that the Labour Government made significant strides in combating antisocial behaviour, and in putting victims at the heart of the justice system; I recall the surprise at that in more conservative legal circles in the early days of that Administration. Mercifully, we have moved on since then.
	I should particularly mention the controls put in place for statutory partnerships under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Those have been enormously important to us in Blackpool, where partnerships between the police, local authorities and others to tackle crime and disorder have worked extremely successfully. I want to make a point that is specific to my constituents and to the town: like many seaside and coastal towns, and many inland towns with a high degree of transience, in Blackpool, issues associated with houses in multiple occupation and the problems faced by a minority of rogue landlords and rogue tenants have been very much to the fore. As the House of Commons research paper makes clear, antisocial behaviour injunctions have been valued by social landlords; they have been used successfully against tenants in attempts to tackle vandalism, violence, noise, harassment, and threatening and un-neighbourly behaviour.
	As my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary made clear, none of this can be done without resources. That is why it was very important that more than 12,000 extra police, and more than 16,000 police community support officers, were introduced under the Labour Government, including in Lancashire, which has particularly benefited from the beefed-up powers that were provided.
	What are the issues that any antisocial behaviour Bill should at least touch on and try to address for my constituents in Blackpool? First, there is the question of disorder, particularly in the centre of the town. As many people know, we have millions of visitors every year. Most of them are a delight, but a small proportion are not. The same is true of residents. Problems such as alcohol, petty crime, drugs and general threatening behaviour have always loomed large. Secondly, the issue of houses in multiple occupation is really important. I praise the work done over a long period by the public protection department of Blackpool council, ably headed by Tim Coglan, all who have worked with him, and the cabinet member with responsibility for housing, Councillor Gillian Campbell.
	I should like to quote from a couple of letters that I received recently that underline some of our problems. A hotelier—bear in mind that there are some 600 hotels and guesthouses in my constituency—said:
	“I run a hotel with my partner situated…in South Shore. We unfortunately have a HMO adjoining us…and one opposite…Both properties have drug and alcohol problems and are situated with ourselves in the ‘Holiday Zone’.
	We persistently suffer ‘users’ calling up at the flats for drugs, the police are constantly parking outside our hotel to visit our neighbours. The flat adjoining our hotel on the first floor have dogs, who are rarely taken out of the flat.”
	The good news in this story is that Blackpool council, together with other organisations, is working on this. I quote the letter I received from the council:
	“Officers of the Housing Enforcement Team have been tackling issues...one of the problem tenants has already been evicted and the managing agents…are in the process of re-housing the tenants with the dogs.”
	Another letter from another part of the town mentions the importance of alley gates, which have been a particularly effective way of dealing with antisocial behaviour in Blackpool.

Stephen Barclay: On HMOs and antisocial behaviour, including in alleyways, are there not already powers available to councils? The issue is whether councils are using the powers they already have, rather than whether new powers are required under the Bill.

Gordon Marsden: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I do not disagree with him on the powers, which are already there. What is important is enforcement by councils, and the resources that are available to them. Sadly, Blackpool council’s ability to do the stuff it would like to on alley gates has been severely hindered over the past couple of years by substantial cuts in funding from the Department for Communities and Local Government.
	I want to talk about the importance of police and community support officers, who are crucial, particularly now, when we have problems not just with houses in multiple occupation, but with houses that are bought at low prices when owner-occupiers move out, and landlords rent them out to problem families. I have many examples of that. I pay tribute to the activities undertaken in our town by the police and the community together. I am thinking of a group, ably chaired by Mr Dave Blacker, who are concerned about their PCSOs. Issues of funding and what might be available from Government have come to the fore.
	Other really important issues are vandalism—Stanley park and other parts of the town have been badly affected by it recently—metal theft, the protection of war memorials and dumping. Those are all issues on which PCSOs can make an important contribution. That is why we need to look critically at what the Government are doing in the Bill. The crime prevention injunction—the proposed replacement for an antisocial behaviour order—is significantly weaker. A breach of the new injunction is not a criminal offence and will not result in a criminal record. Other proposed measures against antisocial behaviour also appear weak. The Government’s proposed community trigger has seemed weak in the areas in which it has been trialled, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary made clear earlier. As her colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) said, breach of ASBOs was a criminal offence; breach of injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance is not. Nor does the Bill guarantee a response from the police or the council. It guarantees a review. In my region, the north-west, police in Manchester recorded nearly 26,000 cases of antisocial behaviour in 2012-13, but the trigger was activated a mere four times.
	When it comes to tackling antisocial behaviour, the elephant in the room is the way the Government have cut the police budget. Police community support officers, who are so often at the forefront in tackling day-to-day antisocial behaviour, have been hit particularly hard. That has led to Lancashire losing 9% of our front-line officers in the first two years of this Tory-led Government, and 500 police officers.
	I shall touch briefly on knife crime, which has been a key issue in Blackpool. The Government have, to be fair, introduced a new crime of “threatening with article
	with blade” in public or on school premises, but the Prime Minister told MPs in recent months that the Justice Secretary was reviewing the powers available to the courts to deal with knife possession, and the Lord Chancellor has said he is revisiting the whole topic of knife crime. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary rightly said, this is a Christmas tree Bill. It is unfortunate that the outcome of those reviews has not informed the detail of the Bill.
	The topic of firearms has been touched on. I entirely associate myself with the comments that have been made about the dangers presented by people with a history of domestic violence. We know that only too well in Blackpool from the Justice for Jane campaign, which concerned the case of a young woman who was tragically murdered by her partner, who had a history of domestic threatening and violence. Such ticking time bombs need monitoring, and the Government should be monitoring some of them far more carefully and providing the legislation that would make that possible.
	Lastly, I return to the subject of dangerous dogs. I have not been convinced by what the Home Secretary said. Many other organisations—not just the RSPCA, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Blue Cross and the Select Committee—feel that the proposals, rather like my 15-year-old Jack Russell-Chihuahua cross, are somewhat toothless. Dangerous dogs are a real problem and they need a special and specific remedy. I know that only too well from my former colleague in the House, Joan Humble, who almost lost the tip of her finger when canvassing in Blackpool in 2012. These Government measures, as has been said, are simply too weak. Instead of these piecemeal proposals, the introduction of dog control notices would be wide ranging and enforceable in the sorts of areas that have been discussed.

Robert Flello: I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech immensely. Does he agree that there is a need for a much wider look at issues such as dog breeding? A raft of related issues needs to be addressed properly. Does he agree that taking all the dog-related measures out of this Christmas tree Bill and consolidating them in a single piece of legislation would be a better way forward?

Gordon Marsden: I hear what my hon. Friend says. In an ideal world he would be correct, but unfortunately we heard from the Home Secretary this evening her extreme reluctance to admit that anything other than the general and mixed powers presented in the Bill would do the business. I hope that in Committee and on Report, some of the issues can be addressed far more forcefully than they were by the Home Secretary this evening. In particular, the public spaces protection orders are too sweeping and vague in many respects to deal with what is proposed. The Battersea Dogs and Cats Home briefing makes these points far more eloquently than I can. It also makes the point that dogs that pose no danger to public safety should remain with an owner of good character while an application to the court for an exemption takes place.
	About 5,000 postal workers every year are attacked by dogs. Seventeen people, including children, have been killed in dog attacks since 2005, including one in Blackpool in 2009. I welcome, as do Members in all parts of the House, the Government’s proposal to extend
	prosecution and to extend responsibility to private property, but given what has been said in the House this evening, I wish the Government would take the opportunity to think more carefully and substantially about the broader range of dog control measures I have mentioned. They might also consider what many people see as a good—or should I say poor?—example of what happens when we legislate in haste: the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
	I mentioned my dog earlier. Sadly, her partner died earlier this year. She was a Staffie-Collie cross, and I am sure she would have agreed, as I do, with what the Communication Workers Union said: that we should be legislating for deed and not for breed. I hope the Government will take the opportunity to remedy that, if not in the Bill, then at some point.

Priti Patel: I am delighted to contribute to this Second Reading debate, primarily because, as a number of speakers have highlighted, antisocial behaviour blights the lives of our communities and our constituencies. One of the things that strikes me when dealing with constituency matters relating to antisocial behaviour is that it prevents blameless and innocent victims—citizens—from feeling safe not just in their own homes and their own streets, but in their own communities, which is why I welcome the broad thrust of the Bill and wholeheartedly endorse the Government’s approach to supporting victims and preventing antisocial behaviour.
	For many years under the previous Government a vast number of measures were introduced, some of which were well-meaning, but profoundly ineffective in tackling some of the problems that we have heard about today. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, mentioned the death of Fiona Pilkington a few years back, which shocked the nation. The horrific story and her plight demonstrated how bad antisocial behaviour could become and the distress that it caused to victims. That tragic case highlighted the fact that the authorities let this family down and failed to do enough to bring an end to the torment that the family suffered.
	Despite all the legislation and the introduction of ASBOs, as we heard at the time and as we heard again from the Chairman of the Select Committee, the inquest into those deaths found that the calls to the police and to associated bodies were not joined up and were not prioritised, and that there were problems in gathering and processing information. That was among the most serious cases, with severe consequences for the victims. Importantly, it highlighted the wider issues of the approach taken to antisocial behaviour and the case for wider reform, which the Bill addresses.
	The Home Secretary mentioned the community trigger. Although I am pleased to say that my constituency is generally considered a safe place to live, there are certain areas in the town and in the surrounding villages which, unsurprisingly, have been blighted by antisocial behaviour. These occurrences are serious and should be treated as such because they are distressing for those of my constituents who are affected. Equally distressing is the sense among those communities of the paralysis of the authorities, which seem either reluctant or powerless to act, or are bogged down in bureaucracy and therefore
	unable to seek prompt resolution. At the end of the day, our constituents want to know that something is being done and action is being taken.
	I want to highlight some recent cases in my constituency. Families using the park in Maldon road in Witham have been alarmed by groups of young men using the children’s play space inappropriately. It is summer and parents cannot let their children play because men are drinking and behaving in an abusive, intimidating and frightening way in the park. One constituent was so shocked by what happened that she reported to me that the men had been calling over to girls, had tried to involve them in conversation, and had offered them alcohol. We have had recent cases of inappropriate behaviour involving alcohol and persuasion by men in the wrong way. What was worrying for my constituent was the response by the police. They were pretty ineffective, remarking that because these individuals were foreign, they did not understand that it was inappropriate behaviour, and that they were in the park as there was no designated area for them to drink in. That is simply not appropriate. Rather than taking action and making the area safe, the authorities were reluctant to act. Many of us here are parents, and I was disgusted by these events. I am pursuing the case with the local authority and the police because I have been left in no doubt that action should be taken.
	Another constituent let me know of a further incident where at 10 pm one evening they called the police as noise from these young men in the park was causing her and her family significant disturbance. They called again at 11 pm as they were being kept awake, but it was not until 1 am that the police arrived on the scene. There are many other such incidents not just in my constituency but throughout the country. At least 2.3 million similar incidents are reported to the police each year. The introduction of the community trigger will help communities that feel let down by the authorities to compel those authorities to take their concerns seriously and to act. I would go further as a Member of Parliament and work with the local authority and other community groups to encourage them to have their voices heard, and the community trigger has an important role to play in that.
	My approach to crime and criminal justice matters is to put the victim first. I have been particularly outspoken in the past about the disproportionality in the criminal justice system when victims unfairly have to fight to have their voices heard. For too long the justice system has been skewed in favour of offenders, focusing on help and support for them while neglecting those who are most affected by their crimes. Conservative Ministers deserve credit for refocusing attention on victims, and the Bill goes some way to addressing past deficiencies in the justice system. Victims want action taken promptly to protect them from antisocial behaviour, and they also want to be involved in decisions taken about how the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts deal with criminals. I therefore welcome the duty to consult victims that clauses 95 and 96 place on prosecutors who are minded to offer an offender a conditional caution or a youth conditional caution. The requirement to attach to the conditions reasonable requests made by the victim is a positive step forward. It is disappointing that this has not happened already and there is much more that we can do, but this is a welcome step forward.
	The community remedy is also a welcome way to involve victims in the restorative justice process, so that it works for them. However, I seek an assurance from the Minister that no victim will be compelled to go through the restorative justice approach if they do not wish to. Victims can be retraumatised and have to go through a great deal of hurt as a result of that process.

Robert Flello: On restorative justice, the hon. Lady will know from the all-party victims and witnesses of crime group that we co-chair that restorative justice can mean different things to different people. Does she agree that perhaps in this Bill, but certainly somewhere, there should be a clear definition of restorative justice?

Priti Patel: There is no doubt that restorative justice can mean a range of different things, and there should be a much wider discussion about this. Parliament is best placed to consider this and we should make the victims groups that we work with part of this discussion.
	I would welcome an assurance that where a crime has been committed and there is sufficient evidence to take the matter to court, police and prosecutors will proceed with a prosecution if that is what the victim wants. I raise this because many victims are satisfied and have closure once an offender has been brought to court and convicted, rather than have informal action taken against them.
	Strong action is also needed on retail crime. Businesses, their owners and those who work in them can be subjected to quite horrific incidents of antisocial behaviour. I say that as someone who has grown up in a family business and seen at first hand how intimidating individuals and groups can be when they target a high street or independent shop and behave in an obscene way. Shopkeepers work long hours and are often under considerable stress and pressure. They need to be supported, and the community trigger will be a useful tool for them.
	I urge the Government to look again at clause 133 on low value shoplifting. Owners of small shops in particular will be concerned about what they will see as a downgrading in the way that thefts of a value of below £200 are treated. Requiring that these be dealt with by magistrates courts and encouraging the use of fixed penalty notices and restorative justice methods can detract from the serious nature of the offence. As well as the stress and pressure, there is also the matter of the cost to the business. More often than not shopkeepers install CCTV and spend a lot of time dealing with the police and providing evidence. Small shopkeepers who may have invested considerably in security measures are already disillusioned with the police responses to crime, and theft has a serious impact on their profit margins. Shop thefts account for about 83% of crime against the retail sector, and the Home Office has estimated that there were approximately 4.1 million incidents of shoplifting in 2012 alone.
	Most of the perpetrators will be serial and repeat offenders, so when they are caught, victims and businesses should expect some of these offenders to face the full force of the law, otherwise they will just carry on offending. Less than half of the fixed penalty notices issued for shop theft in 2011 have been paid in full by offenders. Average thefts are valued at £88 and the majority of these thefts are of goods valued up to £25. Introducing the £200 threshold into law will mean that
	it is possible for almost all of those caught shoplifting to be dealt with outside of court. What kind of message does that send out to hardworking shopkeepers and people who invest in their local economy and generate jobs and growth in their own family?
	Just as the Government are giving victims a greater say in how to deal with antisocial behaviour, so we should be empowering shopkeepers and businesses on our high streets, in our town centres and on parades of shops in our estates so that they can get the full support and protection they need from the police and councils to have a say in how offenders are treated. I hope that the Government will look again at that clause.
	Finally, I would like the Minister to consider using the Bill to help businesses and individuals affected by Travellers staying on their land without permission, which is a form of antisocial behaviour. There have been a number of incidents in my constituency over recent bank holiday weekends—surprise, surprise—that have highlighted the need to put stronger measures in place. Last month a number of vehicles arrived on the Eastways industrial estate in Witham. Although the police eventually moved them on within two days, they caused immense disruption to local businesses operating on the site. They left behind litter and gas bottles and caused a lot of damage and vandalism to the site. There were also reports of aggressive attitudes shown towards business managers and nuisance behaviour. Those businesses are creating jobs and growth locally. They should not be subject to such awful behaviour and delays. It took two days to have them removed. Businesses lost thousands of pounds and incurred thousands of pounds in damages, and supplies and deliveries were delayed.
	I hope that the Minister can look at ways to use the Bill to strengthen the voice of businesses and communities to prevent such incidents occurring not only in my constituency, but up and down the country, and to take a firm and reasonable stance to individuals who behave in such a way.

Luciana Berger: I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate, particularly as it touches on an issue that is incredibly close to my heart. Before coming to that point, I know that many right hon. and hon. Members have addressed, or will address, some of the wider measures the Bill is concerned with. Although I welcome some of those measures, I have a number of concerns about the Government’s plans for tackling antisocial behaviour. In particular, I am worried that the Bill will make it harder, not easier, for communities to deal with and combat antisocial behaviour effectively.
	We discovered only this weekend that red tape introduced in the Bill will cost police and local councils at least £14 million to get CCTV. As I mentioned in an intervention on the Home Secretary—the point is worth sharing in more detail—Liverpool’s City Watch team has used state-of-the-art CCTV both as a deterrent and to identify and convict those who commit crimes and antisocial behaviour offences. It is a very advanced system and it has been highly effective. As a result, Liverpool is now one of the safest cities in the country, according to the UK Statistics Authority. We often have delegations—not only from across the country but from across Europe—who visit the facility and meet the operators, who are highly
	trained and technical, to see what they are doing and how it might be replicated elsewhere. Given that success, I echo the sentiment I expressed before: it would be such a shame if other local authorities that need CCTV or want to advance their systems were unable to follow that good example. I have every confidence that Opposition Front Benchers will address those concerns in Committee.
	I will focus the rest of my remarks on the measures in the Bill for tackling dangerous dogs, which are covered in part 7. Perhaps it is fate, design or just pure coincidence that it is 22 years to the day since the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 received its Second Reading in this House. That was a very long time ago, and it has become clear since, particularly over the past 10 years, that the legislation has not been up to the job. The issue was first raised with me in my constituency just before I was elected three years ago, after the tragic death of John Paul Massey, who was just four years old, in the run-up to the general election. His death really affected the whole community—some members of my community are still very much affected. I have worked closely with his mother, Angela, to raise these issues with the Government. It happened on 30 November 2009. Angela has been incredibly stoic and brave in campaigning on the issue so that no other family has to go through what her family have gone through. Angela came with John Paul Massey’s father and representatives of many other organisations about a year ago to deliver a letter to the Prime Minister highlighting their concerns about the legislation as it stands. I have been compelled by Angela’s incredible bravery to take up her case and ensure that no one else suffers as she has.

Julie Hilling: I want to add my tribute to the family of John Paul Massey, because they have also been supporting the family of Jade Lomas-Anderson as they have been going through the same thing.

Luciana Berger: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I know that those words will have been heard by Angela and that they will be very welcome and kindly received.
	This really is an issue that transcends party politics. I have worked with many Members on both sides of the House who have campaigned on the issue. It does not discriminate between urban and rural areas; it affects all our constituencies. Many people have been campaigning on the issue for far longer than I have; I was elected only three years ago. It was actually the first thing I spoke about in the House. Many people outside the House have worked tirelessly on the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) mentioned Dave Joyce, of the Communication Workers Union, who works so hard to raise the issue with Members on both sides of the House on behalf of his members, the postal workers who deliver our mail everyday. Claire Robinson of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals works incredibly hard on the issue. Organisations including the Dogs Trust, the National Dog Warden Association, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Blue Cross and Battersea Dogs & Cats Home have worked collectively to raise the profile of the issue with the Government and to see some urgent action.
	The previous Government initiated a comprehensive consultation on what could be done to promote responsible dog ownership and combat dog attacks on people and other animals. It is regrettable that it has taken three years for the Government to respond to that consultation, which concluded in June 2010, and bring forward the measures we are discussing today.

Robert Flello: On that point, one thing that really concerns me is that not only has it taken that time to get to this stage with the draft legislation, but in that time we have seen measures relating to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995 introduced specifically to exclude dog attacks.

Luciana Berger: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has been working hard with the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, as have I, as a member of USDAW, to raise the profile of that issue. It is highly regrettable that the Government have chosen to exclude people who have been attacked by dogs from the criminal injuries compensation scheme. I hope that they will reconsider that.
	I wish to welcome some of the measures the Government are bringing forward. As the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) mentioned, the fact that the Government now recognise that attacks on assistance dogs should be acknowledged as a very specific crime is to be welcomed. Many organisations, including the guide dogs trust and the Royal National Institute of Blind People, have been working tirelessly on behalf of the visually impaired community to highlight the fact that at least 10 assistance dogs are attacked every month. Most people do not know that a guide dog costs around £50,000 over its lifetime, and that is all charitable money because no support is received from the Government. If a guide dog is attacked, the repercussions and implications for the person the dog is there to support are far reaching, so I welcome the fact that the Government are addressing that in the Bill.
	The law is also being extended to cover attacks that take place on private property. We know that the vast majority of attacks happen in someone’s home, in a front or back garden, so it is right that that loophole is being closed. We have heard from other Members specifically about the attacks on postal workers. About 5,000 postal workers are attacked every year, and they will most certainly be thankful for this measure. I had not been aware that since 2011 4,100 working days have been lost at Royal Mail owing to injuries incurred through dog attacks on our postmen and women, and that has cost Royal Mail approximately £400,000. It is not only postal workers who have been attacked on private property; so have our emergency services, social workers, telecomm operators and health visitors, many of whom put themselves at risk every day when they enter the homes of the public. I welcome the fact that the Government are going to do something to address this.
	I also welcome the Government’s plans on compulsory microchipping by 2016. There is in our country a significant and growing problem with stray dogs. I meet many owners who are separated from their pets, and having a microchip helps them to be reunited. However, much more needs to be done if the horrific attacks are to be stamped out. Officials have estimated that more than
	200,000 people are bitten or attacked by a dog in England every year. That is an absolutely staggering figure. Because I am involved in a campaign to raise the profile of this issue, I receive an e-mail at least once a week from someone somewhere in the country who has been affected by a dog attack. I should like to mention just one that has been reported today in the
	Liverpool Echo
	.
	Theo Reynolds is three years old, and his life changed for ever just a few weeks ago after he suffered a vicious attack while out walking with his dad down a Liverpool street. The dog went for him and bit off his toe. Doctors attempted to reattach it but were unfortunately unsuccessful. Every year, our NHS spends more than £3.5 million treating injuries sustained in dog attacks like the one that Theo suffered. What is most harrowing is that the victims of these attacks are so often children, who go on to suffer not just the physical consequences but the long-term psychological and emotional effects. I have spoken to many parents whose children are now unable to go out or enter a park or a playground because of the impact that a dog attack has had on their life.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I commend my hon. Friend for her speech. I have met a father whose young child was playing on a lovely day in a park and found an animal running in circles round the playground time and again, completely out of control. That child had their ear ripped off. Beyond the legislation, there is an onus on the owners to take responsibility for their dogs.

Luciana Berger: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He tells a story that I have heard too many times. When we talk about dog attacks, we have to talk about responsible dog ownership. Lots of people say that they feel they may not have the skills or the expertise to best look after their pet, and that is one of the things that the Government should seriously consider. The example that my hon. Friend gave and the examples that have been cited by others illustrate why we need to give a range of powers to the police, local authorities and our fantastic dog wardens, who will prevent these attacks from happening in the first place. I am seriously concerned that the Bill as it stands is far too weak. I share the analysis of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which said that these plans are woefully inadequate. Where is the support for owners to provide them with the education they need to best look after their pet? Where is there anything in this Bill that will properly prevent dog attacks, specifically, from happening in the first place?
	I hope that the Home Secretary will listen again to the many calls to include dog control notices in the Bill, because the wider, non-dog-specific community protection notices, criminal behaviour orders and crime prevention injunctions that it will introduce do not cut it and will take far too long to implement. A dog control notice would enforce muzzling a dog and keeping it on a lead wherever it is in a place to which the public have access, and the owner and their dog having to attend and complete a training course if that is felt to be necessary. It would ensure on-the-spot action before the behaviour of the dog or the owner escalates. It would be a more immediate measure than the lengthy, bureaucratic processes that the Bill will introduce, which will take far too long
	and I fear will be implemented after something very serious has happened. This approach has already been used in Scotland and has been endorsed by the EFRA Committee. Many people, including those at the Dogs Trust, believe it is an effective means of ensuring responsible dog ownership. We desperately need early intervention and prevention, and they are what are lacking.
	When our predecessors debated these issues 22 years ago, one name that featured prominently was that of 11-year-old Kelly Lynch, who was tragically mauled to death by two Rottweilers in 1989. Sadly, two decades on, there have been far too many more cases of families who have lost loved ones to similar attacks. Just two weeks ago another name was added to that list—that of Clifford Clarke, a 79-year-old man who was set upon and mauled to death in his garden while cooking a barbecue. Overall, according to research by the Communication Workers Union, 16 people have been killed in dangerous dog attacks since 2005. Sadly, the action that we are debating today will come too late for them and their relatives. I have come to know some of those families, and I know that other hon. Members have too. Those I have met have expressed just two wishes: that they could have their loved ones back and that no family should have to suffer a loss such as theirs.
	As we consider that plea, it is only right that the names of the people who have lost their lives are recorded: Liam Eames, aged one; Cadey-Lee Deacon, aged five months; Ellie Lawrenson, aged five; Archie-Lee Hirst, aged one; James Redhill, aged 78; Stephen Hudspeth, aged 33; Jaden Mack, aged three months; Andrew Walker, aged 21; John Paul Massey, aged four; Zumer Ahmed, aged 18 months; Barbara Williams, aged 52; Leslie Trotman, aged 83; Gloria Knowles, aged 71; Harry Harper, aged eight days; Jade Lomas-Anderson, aged 14; and Clifford Clarke, aged 79. I hope that the Government will remember those people when this Bill is going through Parliament and consider what more can be done to prevent any other name being added to that list.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Before I call the next speaker, it might be helpful if I inform Members that eight Members in the Chamber have indicated that they want to speak. May I ask each speaker to take no more than 10 minutes, which includes interventions, because that will share out the time between those still wishing to speak?

Stephen Barclay: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) spoke very powerfully about emotive and clearly tragic cases. I am sure that all Members of the House join her in paying tribute to the families of those victims. She is right that the dangerous dogs legislation introduced by a previous Government did not achieve the desired outcomes; I think that most of us would accept that.
	Perhaps counter-intuitively, therefore, I would like to pay tribute to a piece of legislation introduced by Labour. The role of police community support officers in tackling antisocial behaviour has been much maligned over the years, and my party opposed the measure at the
	time, yet when I look at the work of Aivaras Krochalev and others PCSOs in my constituency who have done so much work, particularly with parts of the community where English is not the first language, it is clear that many of them have helped in freeing up officer time and delivering value for money on the front line rather than sitting behind desks at headquarters.
	That is why I welcome the Home Secretary’s measures in the Bill to strengthen some of the powers available to PCSOs. For example, it is illogical for a PCSO to be able to disperse a group from an area but unable to direct an individual to leave it. The Bill is right to give senior officers discretion to tackle that. It is also illogical for PCSOs to be able to fill out forms in those instances but not to issue them. The streamlining of some of the powers that apply to PCSOs will free up police officer time for doing the things that warrant officers should be doing.
	Following that logic, I want to press the Minister to consider extending PCSO powers to take on other responsibilities. For example, a PCSO is able to seize drugs, but not search for them. They can search for alcohol and tobacco, and if they happen to find drugs during the course of those searches they can confiscate them, but if they can smell cannabis they are not allowed search for it; they have to divert the time of a warranted officer instead. The feedback I receive from senior officers is that that is not an effective use of police time.
	Minor issues can also be annoying to officers. For example, a PCSO can issue a fixed penalty notice for cycling on a towpath—we do not have many towpaths in my constituency, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) finds that to be a useful option—but they cannot issue one for cycling without lights. There are a number of other similar areas; I cite those two examples simply to illustrate my argument. If we follow the Bill’s logic and its welcome measures on, for example, dispersal, we will see that PCSOs could take on more powers in tackling antisocial behaviour and that that would free up police officer time.
	Another issue that the Bill does not tackle is that of potential cross-departmental work to enforce antisocial behaviour measures. Last year, there were an estimated 15,000 foreign vehicles on our roads. Once such vehicles are here for more than six months, they have to undergo an MOT and be insured and registered. It is illogical to assume that every single foreign vehicle on our roads has complied with that requirement, yet last year there was not a single prosecution of an unregistered foreign vehicle. Part of the frustration felt by Cambridgeshire police and others is that there seems to be intransigence on the part of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. It uses automatic registration recognition for stolen vehicles, but not in relation to the licensing of foreign vehicles. That has a knock-on effect in community tension; some people feel that they have to insure and register their car while others do not. Clearly, discussions need to be held between the Home Office and the Department for Transport. I would be grateful if the Minister could write to me to confirm that he will take on that cross-departmental work. From some of the cases that I see at my constituency surgery, the issue is causing considerable annoyance.
	Another area where significant time is being wasted and where cross-departmental work is suboptimal is that of licensing. It may surprise the House to hear that an area such as Wisbech in my constituency has more licensed premises in the centre than a student area such as Cambridge. Indeed, we are using existing powers on the accumulated number of licensed premises in order to try to effect change. It is clear that when the police make representations, significant time is spent on compiling long reports that are then often ignored by local councils. It would be beneficial for further work to be undertaken by the Home Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government in order to look at police representations and whether the time spent on cases involving licensing and antisocial behaviour in communities is used as effectively as possible.
	The Bill’s measures will be welcome only if they are enforced. In our rush to legislate, one of the traps that we fall into in this place is that we suspect that just introducing a Bill on antisocial behaviour will effect the change that we seek. It is clear that some of the existing measures to tackle antisocial behaviour are not being enforced. For example, an illegal rave took place in my constituency on new year’s eve. It may surprise the House to learn that the police were at the scene but—understandably, because of the numbers of people present—took the view that it was not safe for them to intervene at that point. However, even though the police were on site when the illegality took place, and even though the business owner took countless photos and the Home Secretary, no less, expressed her horror and shock and desire for enforcement when I spoke to her about the case, I discovered last week, without the police having the courtesy to tell me, that after six months they had simply dropped the investigation.
	It is difficult for the community to understand exactly what evidence the police need to tackle the crime given that they were there as it happened. I welcome the Bill’s antisocial behaviour measures, but I would be grateful if the Minister took up that issue up with the chief constable of Cambridgeshire and addressed why, in a case that involved more than £50,000-worth of damage on new year’s eve and that caused concern to other business owners, no enforcement action has been taken.
	I am conscious of your diktat on time, Madam Deputy Speaker, so with a minute remaining let me finish on a positive note. Under the wonderful leadership of Inspector Sissons in Wisbech, we have launched Operation Pheasant, which has so far raided 80 houses of multiple occupation and has a number of live inquiries. It demonstrates what can be achieved when effective enforcement action is taken. That would not have happened without the active support of the Home Secretary, which, along with the Bill’s measures, will do much to tackle other cases of antisocial behaviour in the months and years ahead.

Susan Elan Jones: It is a pleasure to follow the powerful speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay).
	The shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), described the Bill as a Christmas tree
	Bill. In keeping with the theme of Christmas, let me start on a positive note and address one of the Bill’s good features—clause 134 on the new protection arrangements for persons at risk. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 states that specific groups of people, such as witnesses and jurors, are protected if their safety is at risk from criminal conduct. The Bill extends that further to anyone whose safety may be at risk from another person’s possible or actual criminal conduct, meaning family members and others who will have close contact with that person. That is an extremely valuable addition.
	I am rather more concerned about other aspects of the Bill. The Home Secretary dismissed ASBOs a little too readily. She spoke of how they became a “badge of honour” to some people. I suspect that in three years’ time, we may be sitting here deliberating how CBOs and CPIs have become badges of honour in certain quarters. To me, that is not the point. The point is that ASBOs worked successfully in many areas. It was only the breach of them that was a criminal offence. That made them very powerful. They were not and should not have been the only tool.
	With the criminal behaviour order and the crime prevention injunction, I am concerned that the police and local authorities must pay to pursue civil proceedings against the person. I worry that in these straitened times the incentives may not be there to go ahead with the orders and injunctions in circumstances where the police or local authorities would otherwise have been necessitated to do so.
	There are long and large debates to be had about CCTV, but we are living on planet Zog if we do not recognise its importance in detecting crime around the country. If CCTV is not used by the police and local authorities, we will see the proliferation of its use privately, which is surely not something that we want. I am concerned that under the Bill it be more costly and difficult for the police and local authorities to have CCTV.
	Thirdly, the shadow Home Secretary was right when she spoke about community resolution, restorative justice and domestic violence. Although there are many instances of community resolution and restorative justice being very powerful, we do not want the danger of a situation in which victims of domestic violence are coerced into a settlement being put in place, because time and again, that is not what happens. I urge the Government to consider that.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) spoke of a register for police and crime commissioners. That is a very good idea, especially if it means that my police and crime commissioner registers the fact that he is a Liberal Democrat, which he seemed to forget to put on the ballot paper.
	More seriously, the point that the shadow Home Secretary made about firearms was absolutely right. Although the proposals in the Bill are welcome, the Home Secretary needs to do more to stop people with a history of domestic violence owning a gun. I hope that the Government consider carefully who should have a gun licence. I say that as somebody who comes from a rural constituency and who met two game shooters on Friday night and got on to this subject. Responsible gun ownership in rural areas is totally different from firearms crime. We must have zero tolerance of it and the law must be much stricter about the possibility of people with a history of domestic violence owning a gun.
	Finally, I turn to the horrific subject of forced marriage. The new criminal offences in the Bill are welcome. As someone who thankfully has not encountered this issue through my casework and has only read about it, I fear that one of the great problems is that we are dealing with non-equal relationships and vulnerability. The work of community groups, support networks and third-sector groups is crucial. I worry about how justice is to be obtained. Somebody who has been put in what must be one of the most horrific situations will hardly just pick up the phone, dial 999 and say, “I’m sorry, I have a problem. I’m in a forced marriage.” Justice in this area will not come cheap. I fear the effect of the cuts to women’s refuges, legal aid and especially legal aid practitioners of particular ethnic and cultural backgrounds in whom people are more likely to confide.
	Will the staff who deal with those issues be back or front-office staff? At first, one thinks that they would have to be front-office staff. However, I asked that very question of the Home Office. I asked
	“whether operators who respond to 999 emergency calls and 101 non-emergency calls to the police are classified as front-line or back-office.”
	I was told by the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice:
	“As such, some of the activities involved in call handling and control room functions are considered to be ‘front-line’”
	but that
	“Some call handling and control room functions are considered in HMIC’s report as public facing ‘middle office’ roles.”—[Official Report, 29 October 2012; Vol. 552, c. 72W.]
	If we are not talking specifically about front-line police, I worry that the police who deal with people who are reporting forced marriages may be extremely vulnerable to cuts.
	This is a Christmas tree of a Bill; a Christmas tree of suggestions. I hope, especially on the issue of gun ownership and domestic violence, that the Minister will respond.

Tracey Crouch: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones). I recognise some of the points she raised, and her point about police commissioners and the so-called “independence tag” is one to which I am rather sympathetic.
	This has been a wide-ranging and interesting debate thus far. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) for her comments on dangerous dogs. As chairman of the Pet Advisory Committee, a group of companion animal welfare charities, I am sympathetic to the points she raised. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who spoke powerfully on the issue of forced marriage.
	It is welcome that the Opposition will not be voting against the Bill on Second Reading. I have listened to their overall concerns, but it is good to take advice and support from one’s own police force. Kent police have supported the Bill’s broad approach, saying that the streamlined and simplified toolkit approach to antisocial behaviour is to be welcomed, particularly as it provides a system that would enhance enforcement and make
	information sharing among partners easier, so I feel it would be wrong of me to disagree with my own police force.
	I would like to concentrate on parts 1 to 5, in light of comments on bullying made by the Home Secretary. She said:
	“The Bill aims to diminish the extent to which honest and hard-working people are preyed on by criminals and by bullies who show no regard for the basic rules of civilised living.”—[Official Report, 9 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 168.]
	I am a signatory to the BeatBullying campaign to introduce Ayden’s law. The campaign was established by the families of 10 children who took their lives as a result of bullying, the BeatBullying charity and The Sun newspaper’s justice campaigner, Shy Keenan, who lost her son Ayden to bullying. One aspect of the campaign is to try to get justice for victims through legislation. There are other aspects, such as community protection to provide support for victims and families, making sure there is an interventionist approach to working with the perpetrators, providing support to local schools and communities to tackle bullying, and a compulsory support programme aimed at parents who persistently bully and intimidate others.
	There is a concern, which I understand, about whether Ayden’s law would too quickly criminalise our youngsters. However, a compromise measure could be introduced through some of the clauses already in the Bill. It is too easy to say that bullying should be dealt with at school, or that it is the responsibility of parents. Evidence shows that the worst, most insidious cases of bullying take place not just at school, but on local transport, social media, via text messages and in areas beyond the school gate.
	We know that 44% of suicides committed by young people in the UK are connected to bullying; that one in three of our children are victims of cyber-bullying; that one in 13 experience persistent and intentional cyber-bullying; that one in 20 have resorted to self-harm; that 3% have reported a suicide attempt because of bullying; and that 42% of children in secondary school have been bullied. I have become interested in this issue because, as the House knows, I am still heavily involved in girls’ football, and I speak regularly to teenage girls about their concerns—issues that they might not raise with their parents, peers or school teachers—and one of those is bullying in school. Sometimes they feel they cannot speak to anybody about it or that, if they do, nothing will be done, so we should use the Bill to strengthen the measures in place to tackle bullying.
	I know that many are concerned about criminalising youngsters by introducing a new offence, but perhaps we should look at other countries’ experiences. Unsurprisingly, Sweden led the way by introducing legislation on bullying. It did not go as far as making it a criminal offence, but it made it illegal for a school not to act. Recently, South Africa and New Zealand have introduced anti-bullying legislation, as too have 49 states in America. It is unsurprising that Sweden has led the way, because it has a world-renowned bullying expert whose research found that those who have been bullies are 60% more likely to commit a crime by the age of 24. Tackling this at a young age, then, could prevent people from entering the criminal justice system later in life.
	I said we could use the Bill to come up with a compromise. By that, I meant that the injunctions in the Bill could be used to impose positive requirements, as well as prohibitions, on youngsters who are bullying, thereby providing an opportunity for professionals to intercede and provide support, such as courses—provided by the likes of BeatBullying and others—and family intervention, which is all part of the campaign around Ayden’s law. As the injunctions do not result in a criminal record, they give us an opportunity to state in the Bill that bullying could have legal consequences while still providing the opportunity for the bully to change their behaviour.
	That would be a good compromise for those wary of criminalising youngsters: people would have the opportunity to change their behaviour, but if they failed to do so, they could and should then enter the criminal justice system at a later stage. I recognise the issues associated with the definition of bullying, but those could be worked through, particularly as we know that youngsters are now being subjected to constant abuse, often over social media. This is a real opportunity, then, and I would like to work with the Minister to take the matter forward and potentially introduce amendments making it clear that, as the Home Secretary said a few months ago in her opening remarks about the Bill, bullying is unacceptable in a civilised society.
	I want to make two further points. I am chair of the all-party group on alcohol misuse, and as the Minister will be aware, many of the representations sent to MPs in advance of the Bill mentioned the cost of alcohol misuse to our front-line services, particularly the time the police spend dealing with people misusing alcohol on our streets and in our town centres at weekends—and, indeed, in domestic violence situations, as the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) mentioned. The Bill is an opportunity, then, to strengthen the measures and give the police the tools they need to tackle the issue. I recognise that the Home Office is looking through the alcohol strategy consultation and will, I hope, come forward with some proposals, but this Bill is potentially another opportunity for it to do so.
	The final issue I want to raise might sound a bit silly compared with the other two, but it is something I feel passionately about. This Bill could have addressed the issue of bogus charity bags, which is a growing crime that we face in society. This is not just about the cost of a bag of clothes; it is about giving people confidence that the clothes they put outside their houses for charity are being delivered to charity, and that they are not being taken advantage of by those intent on criminal behaviour. Kent police has worked hard to deal with the issue, partly because I have badgered it into submission. Kent police is keen to ensure that the county becomes bogus bag-free and is using all the agencies, partly because it recognises that organised crime can lie behind bogus charity bags, which quite often mask other criminal activities. The money raised goes into much more serious crimes. The police in my area feel that if they can nip that in the bud at an early stage, it will save them a lot more time and grief in the long run.
	That is some food for thought for the Minister. I hope he will consider adding other issues to the Bill. Bullying is a key part of that, but we also need a statement of intent on alcohol misuse, and I would like much tougher action taken on bogus charity bag collectors.

Julie Hilling: As you and the House will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, my constituent 14-year-old Jade Lomas Anderson was savaged to death by four dogs on 26 March this year. She was staying overnight at her friend’s house as a special treat for having such a glowing end-of-term report. We do not yet know what happened—indeed, we may never know, because Jade was the only person present—but what we do know is the current legislation is inadequate to deal with the aftermath of an attack on private property, or to prevent one from happening in the first place.
	Jade’s mum and dad, Shirley and Michael Anderson, came to London last week to meet Lord de Mauley, a Minister at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary to urge them to take action to tackle dangerous dogs. I am sure the House will join me in commending Jade’s parents for their bravery in campaigning to change the law at this most difficult time. As they say, Jade was a kind girl who would do anything to help other people, and she would want them to try to prevent any other families from suffering in the way they are suffering. As Michael says, with 210,000 attacks each year, more than 6,000 people admitted to hospital, often with life-changing injuries, 12 postal workers attacked each day and 16 people killed since 2005, dog attacks are reaching epidemic proportions.
	Indeed, there have been three more attacks in Atherton in just the last week. The first one was not reported to the police. The second involved Michael’s cousin, who has bruises and scratches from a Staffordshire bull terrier jumping up at her in an aggressive way when she was walking her dog in a park. She was lucky: her boyfriend was there to drive the dog away. The third incident happened when two young men were attacked in the street by another unaccompanied Staffie. Those attacks, like the other 400 or so that took place last week, will not hit the national news and might not even make their way into the local newspapers, but they illustrate the need to take holistic, robust action to protect people and other animals.
	The proposal to extend the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to cover attacks on private property is welcome, but there are fears that the Government’s proposal that dangerous dogs be dealt with under community protection notices will be inadequate. Indeed, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is still calling for dog control notices to be introduced. Such notices would give the authorities the power to intervene if concern is raised about a dog. They would be able to instruct the owner to take a range of actions, which could include keeping the dog muzzled, keeping it on a lead, keeping it away from children or having it castrated. The owner and the dog could be made to undertake training. I believe—although not everyone agrees with me—that we should be able to order the owner to reduce the number of dogs in a household if that home is not suitable for the number and size of dogs present.
	As others have said, dog control notices are supported by a wide range of organisations, including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Royal College of Nursing, the British Veterinary Association, Blue Cross, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, and the Communication Workers
	Union. They have already been introduced in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and they should be introduced across the rest of the United Kingdom. Their existence would provide a swift, flexible and proportionate way of dealing with irresponsible dog owners. They would act as an early-warning system, enabling action to be taken to promote responsible ownership rather than just prosecuting owners after a tragedy has taken place.
	I know from the answers given by Lord de Mauley and the Home Secretary that the Government believe that the measures in the Bill will have an equivalent effect, but I disagree. The most important measures that we need are early intervention mechanisms—preventive measures that can be put in place before an attack takes place. Simply to subsume the issue of dangerous dogs into the whole issue of antisocial behaviour will not give it the priority it needs.
	This is not simply a matter of dealing with a dangerously out-of-control dog; it is about taking action before that dog attacks. It is about looking at the warning signs, such as excessive barking or attacking other animals, and putting preventive measures in place. I cannot see how the Government’s proposals will trigger the appropriate professional response to such signs, allowing action to be taken to protect the community and improve the welfare of the dog. Michael Anderson believes that there should be a dedicated organisation in each local authority area to deal with the issue of dogs, and that such a dedicated team would be able to address the issues of community safety and dog welfare. The Government’s proposals fall far short of meeting Michael’s ambitions.
	I welcome the proposal to microchip all dogs, but many of my constituents do not believe that that goes far enough. They believe we should reintroduce effective dog licences that would require owners to make a decision about how many dogs they can own and care for. Microchipping would go part-way towards achieving that, but why not go the whole hog? If we do not, what penalties will there be for not microchipping a dog, or for not registering a change of ownership or place of residence if a dog is sold or given away when the owner moves home?
	I am pleased that the legislation will extend to assistance dogs, but I am disappointed that it will not extend to all protected animals. I have already told the House about the distress and expense caused to the ex-mayor of Blackrod when she lost two of her cats in a dog attack, and about the ex-mayor of Westhoughton, whose dog was attacked when he was walking it on a lead. Let me also tell the House about a farmer who has signed my petition on dangerous dogs. She heard a disturbance in one of her fields and went out to discover a dog attacking her cattle. The dog started to come towards her, when its owner came out from behind some bushes and called it off. She was deeply traumatised, faced a large vet’s bill and was unable to sleep for a week. We know that some owners deliberately use other animals to make their dogs more vicious, but we also know that attacks on protected animals can be a warning sign of a dog becoming dangerously out of control. I hope the Government will amend the Bill to include attacks on protected animals.
	We also need to educate people about dogs, about the suitability of different breeds for their environment, about how they behave around children and about how much space and exercise they need. We need to educate
	people not to leave any dog alone with young children, no matter how small or placid it might normally be. We need to educate children about dealing with dogs, about treating all dogs with respect and about understanding their body language. We also need to educate children and owners about the care and training of their pets.
	We also need to deal with the issue of breeding dogs. Dog charities and local authorities are reporting an increase in the number of abandoned dogs, yet ordinary people can breed five litters of puppies a year without needing a licence. The Bill does not touch on that issue, but it does get rid of dog control orders, which give local authorities specific powers relating to dog fouling, keeping dogs on a lead or putting them on a lead when told to do so, excluding dogs from particular areas and limiting the number of dogs allowed in certain areas. I am told that the proposed legislation will allow for some of those powers, but I come back to my earlier point that subsuming dog legislation into a Bill that covers antisocial behaviour, crime and policing will not give the issue the priority it needs. As the Communication Workers Union has stated, the Government have missed the opportunity to consolidate all the necessary dog control and welfare legislation into a specific dog control Bill.
	Many people have said that the real issue is not dangerous dogs but irresponsible owners. The Government should take this opportunity to be tough on dangerous dogs and tough on the causes of dangerous dogs. The tragedy of Jade Lomas Anderson and all the other victims is a testament to what happens when we do not take an holistic approach to dog ownership and dangerous dogs. I urge the Government at least to amend the Bill to include more specific clauses, and to take lessons from the past and to introduce a dog control and welfare Bill.

Anne McIntosh: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling). I congratulate her and pay tribute to her for the work she has done following the tragedy of her constituent, Jade Anderson. I was delighted to meet briefly Jade’s parents, Michael and Shirley, and I hope that this evening will bring some solace to them, as they see how widespread is the interest in the issue of irresponsible dog owners and dangerous dogs.
	Our Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has produced two reports that are relevant to this debate: the 7th report on “Dog Control and Welfare” and the Government response thereto; and, perhaps still more relevant, our 1st report on the “Draft Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill”. I say in passing, if I may, that it is a matter of regret to the Select Committee and to those who submitted either oral or written evidence to our pre-legislative scrutiny that the Government published the Bill, particularly clauses 98 and 99, before we were able to publish our pre-legislative scrutiny. Normally, Select Committees meet at any time, including in the recess, but the one time when we are prohibited from meeting is during Prorogation. I pay tribute to those who sit with me, serving on the Committee, particularly those who helped us draft the reports and the witnesses who were able to respect a very tight timetable. Unfortunately, we were unable to draft the report before
	Prorogation, so our views were not taken into account when clauses 98 and 99 were published. That is obviously, as I say, a matter of regret.
	Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I would like to take the opportunity to welcome the extension of the Bill to include attacks on private property, which I think will address the issues raised by the hon. Members for Bolton West and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) who had two of the most tragic cases. It is important to rehearse here that since 2007 nine people have died as a result of dog attacks, of which seven were children. The annual cost to the NHS of treating such injuries is around £3 million. During my first ever election campaign, I was bitten in a rather sensitive area at the top of my thigh by a dog of immense good taste. It went unreported because the dog was owned by a Conservative supporter, and I was not going to take the matter any further. Some eight attacks on assistance dogs and hundreds of livestock attacks happen each month. As we know, a number of communications and other workers are similarly attacked.
	We said in our previous report in February that the Government’s belated proposals for improvement were woefully inadequate. The Bill’s proposals are welcome, but we say that they are limited in scope and fall short of providing a comprehensive and effective regime for tackling the increasing problem of out-of-control dogs. Strong measures to prevent attacks are conspicuously absent. I shall talk in a moment about the dog control notices.
	What the hon. Member for Bolton West said earlier about the issue of resources must not go uncovered this evening. The administration of dog control notices in Scotland is immensely resource intensive; it is labour intensive, and I think that the Government should do some work on this issue in Committee before the Bill returns to the House on Report. Other areas that are resource intensive include dog control notices, the issue of stray dogs and dog welfare.
	We welcome the extension of the provisions to deal with attacks on private property, which was the one loophole that we thought should be covered. We welcome, too, the extension to cover attacks on assistance dogs. We must recognise this evening, however, that the Government have wasted an opportunity to bring forward wider measures, giving a full and comprehensive review of all the laws applying in one consolidated piece of legislation.
	The hon. Member for Bolton West regretted that the legislation would not cover attacks on all protected animals, and I would refer to livestock in that context. Many Members will have received representations from Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, which opposes breed-specific legislation and does not believe that clause 99 will offer the necessary solutions. It is also concerned about the replacement of dog control notices with public spaces protection orders.
	I hope that the Minister will give a little more substance to what was said by the Home Secretary. She listed the six powers provided by the Bill, including the public protection order, the community protection order and the dispersal power, but I remain to be convinced that any sort of order will be specific enough. The evidence given to the Committee was very persuasive, suggesting that dog control notices are working effectively in Scotland, and I think that it behoves the Government to explain to the House why they have rejected them. Control
	notices are very specific, relating to specific dogs in specific areas, and I agree with the hon. Member for Bolton West and others that their retention might prevent future tragedies. If a dog appears to be out of control, we need to be able to bear down on its irresponsible owner. A dog will only behave as it has been taught to behave.
	I disagree with the hon. Lady on just one issue. When dog licences existed, only 50% of owners bothered to purchase them. I fear that responsible owners will microchip their dogs but irresponsible owners will not, and that there will continue to be a drain on charities for that simple reason.
	The Communication Workers Union considers part 7 to be a missed opportunity, believing that many of its workers need stronger protection. I urge the Minister to be honest with the House—I am sure that he will be nothing other than honest; that was a bad word to use. I urge him to be fulsome in explaining to the House in more detail why the Government have rejected dog control notices. As I have said, we have been persuaded that they are working well in part of the United Kingdom.
	While we accept most of the Bill’s provisions, we reserve our right, as a Select Committee, to table amendments on Report if, having conducted pre-legislative scrutiny, we remain dissatisfied. The draft Bill is welcome as far as it goes in extending provision to attacks made by dangerous dogs anywhere, but we have expressed our reservations about the extent of the “householder case”, and I hope that the Minister will elaborate on that in his response. We would also welcome clarification of both the definition of an “assistance dog” and the new provisions relating to “fit and proper” dog owners.
	We are disappointed that the Government have not taken account of the benefits to the public of meeting the expectations that the hon. Lady said had been raised, and the benefits to law enforcers of consolidating the myriad legislative measures on dog control and breeding. There have been many newspaper reports of attacks by dogs on other animals—not just other dogs but, in particular, horses—which are a real problem in the countryside. While we appreciate DEFRA’s concern about the need to retain remedies in both statute and common law, we are not convinced that consolidation would lead to a diminution of the range of legal options available. I believe that the bulk of the evidence given to the Committee demonstrated that a single unified Act would provide a clear and holistic set of measures for those who are given the task of enforcing dog legislation.
	The Minister has his work cut out for him, and we shall monitor him very closely indeed.

Huw Irranca-Davies: As always, it is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), who chairs the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I am tempted to use youth parlance and say, “What they said in their report” and then sit down, but it is worth recording that, although some of these measures are welcome, they are broadly described in the EFRA Committee report as woefully inadequate and belated. That sums up where many of the organisations that have campaigned long and hard for dog control measures feel we have got to. They welcome the Bill being introduced but they feel that it is not there yet.
	It has also been a great privilege to hear some of the contributions by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I would like to mention in particular the contributions by my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), who spoke with real insight and passion on behalf of the people in their constituencies who have tragically lost family members. There are so many such instances.
	May I briefly turn to a separate issue? It relates to chapter 2, clauses 55 to 68. Although I have no pecuniary interest and no financial remittance whatever, I declare that I am the chairman of Glamorgan Area Ramblers and a vice-president of Ramblers Cymru. There are some concerns. The approach is well intended and builds on what has been done to restrict gate access to paths. The issue is getting the balance right. People have had a legitimate right to use those paths and public areas over many years and they should be heard, too. There is some concern, based on the track record of similar measures, that sometimes local communities have felt bypassed in that process. We must ensure that, in tackling antisocial behaviour—it is often an issue with some of these dark, narrow alleys as sometimes the entrances and egresses are used for criminal behaviour—there is proper community consultation, including with those who may say, “Let us get to the causes of the problem, rather than deal with the symptoms and simply gate off the path.”
	On dog law reform and the Bill’s measures to tackle irresponsible owners, it has taken three years. My appeal to the Government, as a former Minister who took great pains to work on a cross-party basis to improve Bills, is that we should please take the opportunity to get the legislation right. I refer in particular to the issue of dog control notices. I have not yet heard—it is for the Government to provide this—compelling reasons why dog control notices are not appropriate. They are backed by many of the 30 organisations, including the police, the Royal College of Nursing, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which still maintain that a purposeful, direct and discrete measure is needed in the Bill specifically to deal with dog control. There are at least two reasons for that. The first is to do with early intervention and getting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West said, to the root of the problem before an attack takes place. That should happen when an animal displays certain behavioural traits, when a social worker, postal worker or member of the family has said, “There are real issues with this animal—something should be done.” Something could also be done early on with the owner of the animal. I am waiting to hear a strong argument from the Minister as to why the Government have taken that position on dog control notices. The Secretary of State did nothing to dispel my concerns and those of many others.
	Already there have been two fatalities this year. There have been 17 fatalities since 2005. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree mentioned many of those tragic cases. There are nearly 250,000 attacks every year. Every local authority faces hundreds of thousands of pounds of costs to kennel the dogs. The Metropolitan police and West Midlands police face millions of pounds of costs every year. Thousands of work days are lost—not only for postal workers but home workers. That has financial costs, too.
	We support the Government’s move to extend to private property the ability to prosecute. Let us get the balance right in terms of trespassers, but that move is welcome. It is right to encompass assistance dogs within the proposals and we support any measure to do that. In so doing, however, I hope we debate in Committee the aspects that the Chair of the EFRA Committee touched on relating to equines, bovines, cattle and sheep in the fields. Following a freedom of information request, some fantastic analysis was done by the Farmers Guardian. Many others have campaigned on the issue. They have identified that there has been a rise in the number of attacks on farmyard stock: from 691 in 2011 to 739 in 2012. Individual owners must take responsibility. My family is involved in upland sheep farming, and we have had to take direct action when dogs have been attacking sheep on the hills. There must also be some comeback on owners who leave their dogs out to run wild in the fields or let them off the leash. I hope that such a measure will feature, and measures on attacks on protected animals ought to be considered, too.
	Good briefings on dog control notices have been produced by Blue Cross, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Communication Workers Union and many other organisations. They criticise the Bill because they see the four different measures proposed in it as adding considerable administration and bureaucracy—I wait to be disabused of that notion by the Minister in his closing remarks, or perhaps in Committee—as opposed to being flexible, light-touch measures that can facilitate early intervention before an attack takes place. Crime prevention injunctions and criminal behaviour orders, for example, both require court hearings if requirements are imposed, and there must be someone responsible for supervising compliance with the requirements, evidence must be given to the court, and if the person is under 18, the applicant must consult the local youth offending team.
	When a social worker goes into a house and they have been told by an RSPCA officer, “The last time we were in there, we had a bit of a problem with the dog, so watch out,” and the dog displays the same behaviour or the owner riles the dog or is clearly mistreating the dog, that is when those steps should be taken, and quickly, without having to go through a lengthy bureaucratic procedure. What we need are bespoke dog control notices, instead of a generic approach. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is very firm on that, as are many outside organisations. The Minister will have to work very hard in Committee if he wants to persuade us otherwise.
	DCNs can work. There is a parallel, and it is not only provided by Scotland. There are provisions under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 for what are called IS87s issued by the RSPCA, and we should look at their compliance rate. These are very flexible and easy to use. Last year 10,728 IS87s were issued, and the level of compliance was 93%. They do work, therefore; they offer a much lighter touch and are much more effective. If we look back to previous years, we see that the compliance rates were 97%, 94%, 96% and 97%. I therefore say to the Minister that there is an alternative way forward, based on the DCN approach, which we can already see works under a slightly different mechanism.
	The Minister must think very hard about how to proceed, and I ask him to go forward with an open mind. We have heard the arguments about why we should not go forward, and they have not persuaded the organisations I have mentioned, including the police. If there is an issue of resources and the Government are worried that the moment they say, “Dog control notice,” there will be a carry-on of resources down to local authorities, charitable bodies and so forth, let us put that up front and talk about how it can be overcome. However, we should not simply package this in with the wider generic package of measures that may or may not be effective, when the police and others are looking to deal with the myriad problems to do with antisocial behaviour and community safety. Our worry is that dog control and dealing with irresponsible owners will again not be the top priority, as has so often been the case in the past.
	I urge the Minister to keep an open mind; I urge him to listen to the Committee and to be open to changing his mind as the Bill progresses. That is all I ask. That is what makes for a good, listening Government and Executive, and he has heard from both sides of the House tonight that that is what we are looking for.

Stephen Phillips: It is an enormous pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who made an incredibly powerful speech. I know the Opposition Front-Bench team have kindly indicated that it does not intend to press the House to a Division, so part of my task tonight is, perhaps, not to detain us all for too long.
	I will speak principally about those parts of this Bill, which I support, that address the question of forced marriage. Before I do so, however, I want my hon. Friend the Minister to know that I have listened very carefully to many of the contributions to this debate, and he has a problem. He has a real problem with the measures that are supposed to deal with the difficulties caused by dogs. We have heard incredibly powerful contributions from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) in particular, the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh). She made it clear to the Minister—I hope he is listening—that he needs to tell the House why the Government do not think that the measures that have almost universal support on both sides of the House, other than from the Front Benchers, and that are in place north of the border should not be included in the Bill. I understand the desire not to have a smorgasbord of measures dealing with antisocial behaviour, but we are talking about a specific problem, to which a specific solution exists in Scotland and which, from the contributions I have heard this afternoon, is effective. He will need to make it clear to the House, although not necessarily tonight as we are not going to divide, but certainly in Committee, and subsequently, precisely why the Government are not in favour of introducing those measures.
	As I have said, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) said, this is a wide-ranging Bill that deals with a large number of things. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) referred to the problem
	of illegal raves in his constituency. I have to tell the House that my constituency is not too distant from Cambridgeshire, despite what we feel may be frequently thought in the corridors of Whitehall, and it has the same problem. I was speaking only last week to some of my local farmers who have encountered it. Anybody who has seen the aftermath of one of these illegal raves knows that we need to have in place the measures necessary to deal with that problem. In addition to dealing with the questions about dogs that have been put to him by other hon. Members, one thing that I want to hear from the Minister when he winds up the debate is that the measures in the Bill will deal effectively with the problem of illegal raves.
	As I said at the outset, the principal issue to which I wish to address my comments is that of forced marriage because I know that the forced marriage provisions in the Bill have support from those on both sides of the House. However, it is important to record precisely the problem with which the Bill needs to grapple and for the Minister to make it clear to the House that it will do that. I say that conscious, of course, that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) made an extremely powerful speech, touching on the measures in part 9 of the Bill, which it would be difficult to follow.
	Let me begin by identifying what the problem is, because this issue is hidden from the vast majority of Members of this House and our constituents. Every year, thousands of people—principally the young and, therefore, vulnerable—are affected by it. We are talking about more than 1,000, based on the statistics we have from the forced marriage unit, and I pay tribute to the previous Government for supporting it when it was set up in 2005. We know from the research that has been conducted and from anecdotal evidence that the 1,000-plus people who contact the unit every year are simply the tip of the iceberg. We do not know quite how many young men and women are affected, but they deserve the protection of the law and they have not had it south of the border in the way that Scotland has enacted it.
	It is therefore right that we welcome the measures in part 9 of the Bill, which address, for the first time, the criminal nature of forcing people to contract a marriage where one, or both, of them does not wish to do so. This intervention that the law requires to be made comes not just in the context of young and vulnerable adults; in the vast majority of cases they are being forced into the situation not only by the people they love, but by the people who are supposed to be looking after them, caring for them and ensuring that their transition from childhood to adulthood proceeds smoothly and in a way that makes them useful, valuable and happy members of our society.
	As I say, the measures in the Bill are to be welcomed. The difficulty with the existing law, for which the previous Administration are to be criticised, is that the system to protect those who find themselves confronted with this problem contained in the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 was simply to have in place civil law measures, which, in effect, led to an order or series of orders against those who might force people into marriage.
	The first problem with that—a point that the previous Government failed to listen to—was that it sent out completely the wrong message. Forcing someone into marriage is not only not desirable; given the context in which it occurs, it ought to be a crime. Although some
	responses to the Government’s consultation indicated that there might be some downsides to criminalising such behaviour, we ought to be absolutely clear that this is not acceptable behaviour in our society, and if it is not acceptable behaviour in our society, it ought to be a crime in England and Wales, as it is in Scotland. Of course, other criminal offences may be committed during the course of forcing someone to contract a marriage, but they may not be, or they may be so serious that there is a reluctance on the part of the vulnerable person affected to instigate a complaint or a prosecution.
	The second problem with having only a civil law system of dealing with forced marriage is that it led to a lack of awareness on the part of professionals, certainly in 2011 when the Select Committee on Home Affairs reported on what precisely could be done, as a matter of law, when a young person found themselves in this position. The follow-on point is that once a forced marriage protection order of some description had been obtained, as far as many professionals were concerned that was the end of the problem, but of course it is not necessarily the end of the problem; it is important to see that the order and its provisions are enforced.
	The third problem was that in the absence of criminality, there was a lack of effective protection, or a lack of an effective penalty, although of course people were put into custody for breach of orders made by the courts. The deterrent effect of having only civil law remedies, which were difficult to enforce and rarely enforced, was therefore lessened.
	It is important to get this point across: none of this is to attack legitimate arranged marriages, which my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) referred to in an intervention on the Home Secretary. None of it has anything to do with proper arranged marriages, or interferes with the customs or culture of minority communities in this country. I understand that the original decision by the previous Administration not to criminalise forced marriage south of the border may well have been based on a desire not to be seen to target minority communities. Nobody wants to target minority communities, or to attack their culture or customs, but I have to tell the Opposition Front Benchers that, given the problem of forced marriage, that was an error—an error that this Government propose to rectify, with cross-party support, in part 9 of the Bill. That is very much to be welcomed, as is the entirety of the Bill, subject to the points that I have made, which the Minister will need to deal with, about dangerous dogs. If we were dividing on Second Reading, which we are not, I would of course give the Bill my support.

Andrea Leadsom: I am delighted to follow my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), who gave us some very interesting information about forced marriage that I was not fully aware of, so I thank him for that. I realise that we are a bit short of time, but I am grateful for a few short minutes—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I would not like the hon. Lady to feel that she has to curtail her comments. She has approximately 10 minutes in which to make her speech, as did everyone else.

Andrea Leadsom: I am now even more grateful. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall not speak at 90 mph, then. I want to take a few minutes of the Chamber’s time, because the Bill is a superb opportunity to break generational cycles of antisocial behaviour. I am changing the subject from forced marriage to how we can, through early prevention measures, stop today’s babies becoming tomorrow’s ASBO kids. The Bill rightly puts victims at the heart of our response to antisocial behaviour. However, a key part of the background to bringing in this legislation was the Government’s clear determination to focus on long-term solutions to antisocial behaviour.
	In the May 2012 White Paper it was clear that the underlying issues driving antisocial behaviour, most notably mental health issues and troubled family backgrounds, should be addressed through this piece of legislation. Not only that , but during pre-legislative scrutiny early intervention was identified as a crucial part of changing the route to antisocial behaviour, so I hope that the new clauses I will be submitting will help the Government to make even more progress in getting rid of the appalling blight of antisocial behaviour.
	I want to outline why getting it right in the early stage of life could be the single biggest challenge of the 21st century. I am aware that I have touched on this subject many times in the Chamber, and thankfully I feel I am beginning to convince colleagues of its merit, but I want to touch again on what early attachment actually is. As babies we are only sensory beings. When we cry, we do not know what is wrong—that we are wet, hot, cold, tired, hungry or bored. We just know that something is wrong. Babies rely on an adult caregiver to meet their needs, to soothe them, and ultimately to help them learn that the world is a good place.
	In the first year of life, the baby’s brain will form a million neural connections per second. Most of us receive good enough care from good enough parents, so our brain connections will develop into a healthy pre-frontal cortex, and we will become emotionally resilient adults, making a positive contribution to society. However, for the baby who is neglected or abused, the development of the brain will literally be stunted. Not only that, but the constantly raised level of the stress hormone cortisol, as a result of the baby being left to scream himself into exhaustion day after day, will lead to a significantly greater risk that they will suffer poor physical and mental health outcomes, and crucially in relation to today’s debate, that they will develop a high pre-disposition to high risk-taking behaviour, such as violence, substance abuse and criminality.
	I want to see early intervention clauses in the Bill because quite simply, what happens to the infant before the age of two has a profound effect on their later ability to contribute to society. Let me give three quick examples. First, violent criminals are shown to have a high level of tolerance to their own stress levels. Secondly, there is a study of long-term prison inmates that suggests that they have attachment problems stemming back to babyhood. Thirdly, the dramatic increase in recent years of the incidence of hyperkinetic syndrome in children points to the increasing prevalence of insecure attachment. A lack of secure attachment to a loving adult in babyhood will lead to a lack of social capacity in adulthood. All too often, unloved or neglected babies go on to have no real sense of responsibility or code of conduct, and they struggle to empathise with other people.
	So much of the cost to our society of antisocial behaviour could be slashed if we focused our efforts on turning around the fate of these individuals in the perinatal period. Supporting families that are struggling to form a secure bond, via parent-infant psychotherapy, family-nurse partnership, better antenatal assessment of maternal mental health, better training for health visitors and family workers, and more joined-up working by midwives, health visitors and children’s centres, would all contribute to a better society. Such changes are cheap compared with the cost of social breakdown.
	Preventing just one in 10 young offenders from entering custody would save £100 million per year. Just one adult inmate costs the taxpayer around £112 a day, and a child in care costs over £300 a day. I am afraid that too much of this Bill attempts to sort out problems once they have set in. This is the position we have got ourselves into as a society. The cost of dealing with it is vast, and reoffending rates are very high, so I urge the Government to take the opportunity provided by the Bill to overhaul the way we deal with antisocial behaviour.

Bob Stewart: Will my hon. Friend quickly outline what real, practical measures could be taken to help families in this situation, including, I presume, taking the child away if necessary?

Andrea Leadsom: I have certainly mentioned some of the specific measures. One of the big problems at the moment, which the Children and Families Bill seeks to address—I was delighted to be part of its Bill Committee —is the need to speed up proceedings when children need to be taken away. All too often, when there are doubts about whether a baby can stay with the birth parents, social workers find it difficult to make that final decision, so the baby is repeatedly passed into and out of care. Very often, the toddler can be three or even older before a final decision is taken. They can be passed backwards and forwards, with profound and detrimental consequences for their early brain development.
	That is at the very sharpest end where there are real doubts and concerns about that child’s ability to stay with their birth parents. In the less terrible cases, perhaps mum has suffered desperately from post-natal depression, perhaps she has had previous children taken away, perhaps she has a violent boyfriend, husband or partner at home who is causing her great difficulty in being able to form that secure bond with her baby. There, clearly, we need to be providing talking therapies, not drugs. All too often, when a mum presents with post-natal depression to a GP, she will be offered antidepressants, which will mean that she cannot breastfeed and she becomes something like a zombie, unable to form that vital secure bond. That has profound consequences for her infant, as I have outlined.
	I urge the Government to take the opportunity provided by the Bill to overhaul the way we deal with antisocial behaviour, and to put far greater emphasis on prevention. Prevention is not only cheaper but much kinder than cure.

David Hanson: I welcome the fact that we have had a wide-ranging debate. There have been some significant and moving contributions from Members from both sides of the House. There has been
	a great deal of consensus on some aspects of the Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and, on behalf of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) have said, there is much in the Bill that the Opposition support, which leads us not to oppose its Second Reading. There are many issues on which we find a good resonance with the Government’s proposals, in what I accept is a Christmas tree Bill. It has many important aspects which will have our support.
	I fully support the new criminal offence for possessing a firearm with intent to supply. In my last few months as the Policing Minister, I visited the firearms centre in the west midlands and was lobbied hard on that very issue. A gun can turn up in offence after offence because it is for hire. We want to consider some further issues concerning domestic violence and owning a firearm, but we will accept and support that measure.
	We support provisions on the new College of Policing. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East, we want to look at governance, composition and diversity, but in principle we support the power to issue regulations. I will also seek to scrutinise in detail the pay and negotiation proposals, but in principle we will give them a fair wind, and test some of the issues in Committee.
	It will come as no surprise that we support extending the powers of the Independent Police Complaints Commission to oversight of private staff employed by police forces. My right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State raised that issue before the Bill was published, and we will want to consider constructively in Committee how to respond to IPCC recommendations and its role.
	The measures on forced marriage have cross-party support. I was pleased to hear the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) give his voluble support to those proposals. The law should be strengthened to build on the work done to stop forced marriage, and we will build on positive measures by the previous Government, although I accept that there are issues that can be reflected on now, which will help to ensure that we have fairness and protection of individuals while still respecting traditions in our communities.
	We will certainly support measures giving immigration officers stop-and-search powers, which I think is reasonable, particularly given the nature of terrorism that we have at the moment. We support the principle of community remedy under clause 93, but again we will want to test that to a good degree in Committee. We strongly believe that restorative justice and community resolutions should be used when dealing with antisocial behaviour, but we need greater clarity about what that means, not just a list of actions that authorities could take, which the Bill gives at the moment. We need more definition. I hope that we can explore those issues constructively in Committee.
	I am also pleased to look at the powers of police community support officers. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) for his constructive and helpful remarks. He—dare I say it—reached out to Opposition Members with his support for previous policies. For that I am grateful, because it does not happen all that often. We will certainly look at those issues constructively and work with him, if he happens to be a member of the Public Bill Committee, to look at how we can form a consensus.
	We will examine the clauses on victims’ services. We do not want to vote against them at this stage, but we have concerns about their fragmentation through commissioning by police commissioners and want to know what the relationship will be with national commissioning. We will test those concerns accordingly in Committee, as we will for the witness protection measures in clause 134, which were mentioned and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones). They seem to be sensible measures that deal with some wider issues.
	A number of issues raised in the debate will be looked at closely in Committee. I was particularly impressed by the remarks the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) made on sexual exploitation, and indeed by the Home Secretary’s generous intervention, when she said that she would look at discussing in Committee the role of hotels and guest houses. Again, we will have an opportunity to test that. The points made by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) on bullying were well made, and the cross-party discussions we have had tonight show that there is a potential consensus on really scrutinising those matters in Committee.
	Early intervention, which was mentioned by the hon. Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), is extremely important. If there are constructive suggestions, the Opposition will look at them, because we recognised when in government that early intervention is key to preventing future poor behaviour. That support can be mirrored in a number of ways, and that is what we will do.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) mentioned knife possession and the experience in Blackpool. I had some sympathy with the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) when she mentioned Travellers, litter and responsibility. That has had an impact in my constituency, which is a tourist area, and we will happily look at that in Committee.
	There remain two main areas where there was the potential for consensus, but not necessarily with Government Front Benchers. The first relates to the question of how we deal with legislation on dogs and dog control issues. The RSPCA, ACPO, the CWU, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, the Dogs Trust and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), have all suggested that the measures in the Bill are not sufficient for meeting the challenges of the problem.

Jim Shannon: The shadow Minister will be well aware of Northern Ireland’s dangerous dogs legislation, which is referred to as five-star because of the steps that have been taken. Does he feel that it is perhaps not too late for the Government to consider that legislation as the method for trying to control dogs here in England, by making the Bill more specific, rather than generic, as it is now?

David Hanson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The model in Northern Ireland could certainly be considered, as it has much merit.
	I think that the Minister needs to reflect on the matter, because as the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, he will face some
	challenges in Committee on those issues. The RSPCA, the CWU, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, the Dogs Trust and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee have all raised concerns and suggested that we need to look at some further matters, so I think that the Minister needs to come to Committee prepared to deal with those concerns. I say that not least because of the cases we have heard about today. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) mentioned John Paul Massey and the recent case of Clifford Clarke. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) mentioned the death of Jade Lomas-Anderson. Last week I had the privilege of meeting her determined parents with my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who over many months and years has given much time to this issue, raised dog control notices. When the RSPCA says that
	“This is a missed opportunity and we cannot understand why the Government has ignored the majority of the public, politicians and organisations”,
	we clearly have an issue to which we should return. Not one voice from the Government or Opposition Back Benches opposed those views during this debate. In February, the EFRA Committee said that the proposals were “woefully inadequate”. I am sorry that the Government produced this Bill prior to receiving the Committee’s comments.
	During our discussions today, a powerful case has been made for considering measures on dangerous dogs. The Bill is far too weak on this immensely serious issue. For example, local authorities would be allowed to prevent dogs from entering a playground but could not ban them from streets and shopping areas. There are anomalies that we need to test and look at in detail. Dog control notices could ensure muzzling of dogs in places which the public access, the neutering of dogs, and the owner and dog having to attend and complete training courses. Battersea Dogs & Cats Home says:
	“We are looking for the Government to introduce Dog Control Notices which will do more to provide for early intervention and prevention.”
	I hope that the Government will listen to the voices across the Chamber that have asked for that.
	The other big issue is antisocial behaviour orders. Opposition Members expressed the concern—I admit that it was potentially more partisan—that the lack of criminal sanction is an error that weakens the Government’s proposals and means that antisocial behaviour will not be tackled as effectively in future. We will test that in Committee and table amendments accordingly. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South and other hon. Friends stressed that that lack of criminal sanction is key to the effectiveness or otherwise of antisocial behaviour orders. The community trigger may not be effective in this context. Three complainants are needed before a complaint will even begin to be taken seriously, and that needs further review. Coupled with that, we have cuts in the community safety budget, cuts in police numbers and, even after a heckle by the hon. Member for Cambridge, a lack of commitment to CCTV cameras to provide really good support to policing in our communities.. That shows that there is the potential for a weakening of powers.
	Sadly, I will end on a partisan note. The weakening of the provisions on DNA, the reduction in CCTV, the reduction in police numbers and the cuts in the community safety budget show that this Government are not tackling crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour in a way that will increase confidence within our communities.

Julian Huppert: The right hon. Gentleman listed a number of things that the Labour Government introduced that some would see as rather authoritarian. Is he really bemoaning the fact that this Government do not, for example, intend that the DNA of innocent people should be kept?

David Hanson: From memory, about 25,000 such people—according to Home Office modelling, not mine—could go on to commit further offences. We had a very full debate on this issue and we lost the arguments. Ultimately, I believe that the measures that Labour put in place in government on DNA, CCTV, antisocial behaviour orders, community investment and policing helped to reduce crime and will continue to help to reduce it still further.
	This is not a bad Bill and we will not oppose it this evening, but it is a weak Bill: it weakens the potential for communities to receive strong support to tackle antisocial behaviour and it does not do what it could have done on dogs. We welcome and support some of its measures, but we will test them in Committee. We will ensure that the Bill receives its Second Reading tonight so that we can address those issues. I hope that the Minister will listen not just to the Opposition, but to Members on his side of the House.

Jeremy Browne: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to conclude this thoughtful and extensive debate. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) for his largely thoughtful speech, although it was slightly diminished by his failure to acknowledge that this Government are presiding over the lowest level of crime since the independent survey began more than 30 years ago. That is a painful truth, but those of us who put the interests of our constituents before party political debating points are proud of it.
	This has been a wide-ranging debate. Some contributions centred on parts of the Bill that have not been widely commented on, and there were some constructive ideas from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) about police community support officers and from my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) about early intervention.
	Large parts of the Bill are broadly popular across the House. For example, the right hon. Member for Delyn touched on provisions relating to the College of Policing and the Independent Police Complaints Commission, and we will have an opportunity to study those in greater detail in Committee. He also welcomed the proposal, which I think is popular across the House, to make possession of a firearm with intent to supply a criminal offence. Of course, this country has some of the toughest controls in the world on firearm ownership, but we are considering how guidance can be strengthened further to take account of some of the concerns that have been raised by hon. Members.
	I was also pleased to hear widespread support—including from the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who made a forceful, emotional and articulate speech—for the Government’s new proposal to criminalise forced marriage. Members were right to draw the distinction between arranged marriage, which involves the consent of both parties, and forced marriage, where mainly young women or girls, but sometimes—in about one in five cases—young men, are coerced into marital arrangements completely against their will. This is a difficult and sensitive issue, because they are usually coerced by their parents or another close family member, so nobody underestimates the difficulties faced by the Government, the Home Office and the Foreign Office in bearing down on this practice. We believe that criminalising forced marriage is the right step to take. It sends a powerful signal, and I think it is in tune with the mood of the country. I believe there is broad consent on those measures across the House.
	About 90% of the contributions over the past four hours or so of debate have focused on antisocial behaviour, which is central to the Bill, and dogs. Let me talk about those two issues in turn. I am sure that every Member of the House who conducts regular surgeries for their constituents or who talks to their constituents more informally about their concerns recognises the importance that the public attach to the issue of antisocial behaviour. My constituency is by no means an inner-city area with high levels of crime, but antisocial behaviour is the issue most often raised spontaneously when I ask my constituents which of their concerns ranks highest.
	Antisocial behaviour blights people’s lives and can cause profound misery. Even though some of the behaviour does not sound of huge consequence in the grand scheme of things—such as late-night noise, neighbours behaving aggressively or people ringing doorbells and running away late at night or early in the morning—it can cause great fear and unhappiness. The cumulative effect of that behaviour can be profound.
	I say as a liberal—with both a small “l” and a big “L”—that people should be free from fear and persecution. That should be a measure of the civilisation that our society has attained. Many people across the country do not live free from fear and persecution, and it is their own neighbours and people in their community who impose that appalling state of affairs upon them. There is an onus on us in this House to see what we can do better to protect people in those circumstances.
	It is with that in mind that we are introducing quicker and more flexible, but still proportionate, powers. We are de-cluttering and streamlining the legislation on antisocial behaviour that has grown incrementally, although with good intentions. We are streamlining the current 19 measures into six easier-to-use ones, but without weakening or diminishing the powers of the authorities—the police, councils and others—to assist the public. Why would the Government or any Member of this House want to weaken their ability to do that? We believe that the streamlined measures can be used more flexibly and speedily, and will allow the authorities better to assist the public to combat antisocial behaviour.
	There are tough sanctions. One or two Members feel nervous about them, but we believe they are necessary to give the legislation force and to underpin the seriousness of this behaviour, which impacts on ordinary members
	of the public. There are also positive requirements in the Bill. As well as having measures to punish people and restrict their behaviour, we want to enable them to address and correct their behaviour. We want to see how those positive requirements can be used effectively. That was touched on imaginatively by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). We will certainly consider with her and the Department for Education what steps can be taken in the Bill or elsewhere to advance the points she raised.
	The community trigger and the community remedy are important aspects of the Bill. The community trigger is designed to help persistent victims of antisocial behaviour. Often, a single incident is not devastating for an individual—although it could be—but the cumulative impact of incidents night after night or week after week does have a severe impact. The community trigger will ensure that there is a backstop in place so that there comes a point, sooner rather than later, when the authorities are obliged to act. Ideally, we would want the authorities to act immediately, but they will not be allowed to let a situation drag on. So that there is no misunderstanding, I should make it clear that the requirement in the Bill that at least three complaints have been made is a maximum threshold, not a minimum threshold.
	I am pleased with the broad welcome the measures have received, including from the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), and my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for Witham (Priti Patel) and others.
	The shadow Home Secretary described the Bill as a Christmas tree Bill, and suggested some extra baubles she wished to hang on to what she had already described as a cluttered Bill. It was perhaps surprising to some Members that Labour seems to have set itself against having streamlined, effective, new antisocial behaviour powers. Instead, we have the normal, lazy, endless checklist of unfunded spending commitments. The shadow Home Secretary talked about more money for the police, more money for CCTV, more money for councils and more money for legal aid—it went on and on. Last week’s rather implausible effort to recast Labour as trustworthy with the national finances has failed to survive first contact with the Opposition Front Bench. We will see what happens, but my fear is that her vast array of spending commitments may just become Labour’s next child benefit: furious opposition, followed by meek acceptance that the Government got it right and the Opposition got it lamentably wrong.
	The provisions better to protect the public from dangerous dogs raised a lot of comment. For the avoidance of doubt, we do not believe that dog control notices are necessary because the powers already exist within the Bill. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) asked why there were no specific dog control notices, and went on to talk about illegal raves. There are no illegal rave control notices in the Bill either, because we believe that the flexible, adaptable powers can be used both for illegal raves and for dogs.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jeremy Browne: I will give way once, but I have a couple of concluding points I wish to make before the end of the debate.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the Minister tell us briefly why, after three years of repeated consultations by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Home Office, he has been unable to persuade any of the outside organisations, including the police, the Royal College of Nursing, the CWU and others, that his proposals are right? Is he telling me that he is going into the Committee stage with a closed mind? If so, we might have to object.

Jeremy Browne: What I am telling the hon. Gentleman is that we believe the dog control notices provide the right protection. This is a serious issue and there are serious proposals in the Bill to strengthen the protection for the public. We are bringing forward the extension for protecting the public in private areas, as well as in public spaces.
	It was very moving when the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) gave a roll call of the victims of dangerous dogs. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) for the moving speech she made on behalf of her constituent, Jade Lomas-Anderson. We are looking better to protect people who have the potential to be victims of dangerous dogs. I am pleased that the proposals for assistance dogs were widely welcomed.
	I look forward to debating all of these issues and more in Committee. The rights of victims should be at the heart of our deliberations. I have no doubt that the true mark of the Bill’s success will be fewer victims, fewer communities blighted by antisocial behaviour, and fewer victims of gun crime and forced marriage. This is an important Bill and I am pleased that it has broad support across the House. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR, CRIME AND POLICING BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill:
	Committal
	(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
	Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
	(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 16 July 2013.
	(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Nicky Morgan.)
	Question agreed to.

ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR, CRIME AND POLICING BILL (MONEY)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
	(1) amounts ordered to be paid in respect of loss incurred in consequence of prohibition of access to premises;
	(2) payments by the Secretary of State in respect of the Police Remuneration Review Body; and
	(3) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Theresa May.)
	Question agreed to.

ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR, CRIME AND POLICING BILL (WAYS AND MEANS)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, it is expedient to authorise:
	(1) the charging of fees under the Act; and
	(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Jeremy Browne.)
	Question agreed to.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

That the draft Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 (Consequential and Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 11 March, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Nicky Morgan.)
	Question agreed to.

BACKBENCH BUSINESS

Ordered,
	That Mr David Amess, Mr David Anderson, Bob Blackman, Jane Ellison, John Hemming, Mr Marcus Jones and Ian Mearns be members of the Backbench Business Committee.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

COMMITTEES

Mr Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall take motions 7 to 10 inclusive.
	Ordered,

Defence

That Sandra Osborne be discharged from the Defence Committee and Derek Twigg be added.

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

That Thomas Docherty be discharged from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck be added.

Transport

That Steve Baker be discharged from the Transport Committee and Jason McCartney be added.

Work and Pensions

That Mr Aidan Burley be discharged from the Work and Pension Committee and Mike Freer be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

YOUNG PEOPLE (BARNSLEY CENTRAL)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Nicky Morgan.)

Dan Jarvis: It is a great pleasure to speak in tonight’s debate on an issue that is extremely important for Barnsley and the country.
	In these times of austerity, there is huge pressure on my constituents, including young people. This is a tough time to be growing up. Barnsley is a great place to live and raise a family. It is an exciting place to work and a good location to set up a business. It is a place to build a life. It is a town with a proud history and what should be a bright future, and the young people of Barnsley Central are key to unlocking our town’s potential. Prospects for young people are uncertain, however, and many are concerned that we risk wasting a generation of talent.
	There is no shortage of talent among young people in my constituency. I see this in the Barnsley youth choir, which will perform a concert later this month alongside the world-famous Hungarian Aurin choir; at Carlton community college, where four pupils were recently awarded the prestigious Diana anti-bullying award in recognition of their commitment in tackling bullying; and at Holy Trinity school, which I visited on Friday and met some outstanding pupils. I felt privileged to meet Calum Barnes, Alex Haycock, Alexandra Ryan-Moss, Callum Mitchell, Jessica Knowles, Eleanor Coles, Lucy Towers and Tariro Munega. I came away inspired by their ambition.
	I know from my time in the Army that young people can and will do the most amazing things. I have seen at first hand young people demonstrating outstanding courage, professionalism, dedication and commitment, but the potential that young people possess must be encouraged, cultivated and celebrated. Developing young people’s potential ensures not only that every individual feels valued in society, but that the UK has a bright future. Young people must be given the chance to make this future a reality, however, and my concern is that the Government run the of risk letting this wealth of potential fall by the wayside by failing to put policies in place that protect young people from the worst effects of the economic crisis.
	Although I intend to focus this debate on young people’s education and training opportunities, it is important to understand the context of the challenges facing young people at the beginning of their lives. The beginning of a child’s life should be filled with hope and happiness. Instead, children and their parents face real financial challenges, at an already difficult time. In 2011, the Prime Minister assured the House that
	“The money for Sure Start is there, so centres do not have to close.”—[Official Report, 2 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 295.]
	However, the budget has been cut by a third, and there are now 400 fewer centres nationally compared with May 2011. In my constituency there has been a significant reduction in funding, with a cut of £6.9 million since 2010. The Prime Minister also promised “a major step forward” on child care in the recent Budget. In reality, many families are set to lose up to £1,560 a year, at a time when wages are stagnating.
	Recently I visited Darton college, a brand new Building Schools for the Future school, like all the secondary schools in Barnsley. There I met some hugely talented
	students who were researching the impact of child poverty. Like me, they were struck by the statistics. Twenty-two per cent of children in Barnsley Central live in poverty—a completely unacceptable figure in this day and age—so children and their parents need all the support we can give them. By supporting them in their early years, we can provide families with a stable emotional and financial platform from which they can get the best possible start in life.
	I would like now to focus this debate directly on education and training opportunities for young people in Barnsley Central. I acknowledge that some of the issues I will raise sit outside the Minister’s brief and are the responsibility of other Departments. Although I do not expect the Minister to respond on all these matters, I would like to make it clear that they affect education policy and are relevant to the debate.
	Everyone deserves the best possible start in life, and equal access to a high quality education should provide this. After all, education is the key to success. Young people have a range of options open to them when they reach further education, from the study of A-levels and BTECs to apprenticeships and other vocational courses, but the Government are making it harder, rather than easier, for young people to access further and higher education. The decisions to abandon the education maintenance allowance, treble tuition fees and remove the Barnsley-inspired future jobs fund have delivered a triple whammy for young people in Barnsley Central hoping to get on the career ladder. Consequently, the number of young people in my constituency in further education is falling. In 2011-12, 8,600 young people from Barnsley Central started a further education course of one kind or another. This was 400 fewer than in 2010-11 and 1,400 fewer than in 2009-10.
	Proposed reforms to the way in which A-levels are studied also threaten the future prospects of some of our young people. The restructuring of exams to make assessment linear rather than modular is likely to affect the provision of education and skills needed by young people in later life. I believe we must encourage children to develop skills in school that will enable them to adapt and respond to situations and opportunities they will face in life, not simply to regurgitate remembered facts for an exam—facts that are quickly forgotten. Surely we should be equipping our young people with a more rounded and flexible education, which will better prepare them for the modern work place, rather than resorting to the old “exam conveyor belt” system in an attempt to boost league tables.

Sarah Champion: Last week I visited Newman school, which is a special needs school. I was struck by the vigour with which the school encourages young people to be empowered to have a voice and take an active role in society. Does my hon. Friend agree that these are also skills that children need?

Dan Jarvis: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. It brings me on neatly to what I was about to say about the impact of some of the Government’s proposed reforms on special schools, which also echoes the point she has just made. I have two such schools in my constituency: Greenacre and Springwell. Both are excellent, well-led schools, with hugely committed teachers.
	I share the concern of my hon. Friend and many others about the impact of some of the Government’s reforms on the delivery of education, particularly in the context of assessment and examination in special schools. I am sure the Minister would agree that we must do all that we can to support young people with disabilities and additional needs.
	The educational opportunities open to young people in Barnsley Central include an outstanding tertiary college. In the words of the Ofsted inspectors,
	“Barnsley College provides an inspirational resource for the Barnsley community and a transformational one for many learners.”
	However, I believe that, in order to create a level playing field for post-16 schools and colleges, we need to remove the basic funding differences. One issue that has been debated by Members in this House is the fact that the entitlement to free school meals in schools and academies does not extend to colleges. Another significant difference is that colleges have to pay VAT out of the money they receive for teaching and learning. The principal has informed me that if Barnsley college was treated the same as an academy for VAT, he would have around £1 million a year more to spend on teaching students.
	Barnsley college also has a successful programme of encouraging community groups and school-age children to use its new building in the evenings and at weekends. The latest addition to this programme will be additional classes in English and maths, held on Saturday mornings. The principal has informed me, however, that he cannot grow that valuable work any further because Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs regards teaching children in colleges as a business use, and he will run the risk of receiving a huge bill if he tries to grow classes or activities for the community beyond their current level.
	Also, it seems reasonable that parents and politicians should be able easily to compare the performance of post-16 provision in schools and colleges. To enable this to happen, there needs to be a level playing field in the production of the data in the Department for Education league tables. We must also ensure that Ofsted applies the same standards and judgments to all post-16 providers, including the awarding of a clear separate grade at inspection for school and academy sixth forms. May I ask the Minister or a ministerial colleague to write to me about these specific issues relating to Barnsley college?
	Leaving school or college is a time of fresh challenges and tough decisions for our young people. Those pupils who opt to go to university will face the daunting prospect of high tuition fees. Those young people who feel they cannot afford to do so face missing an opportunity to further their study. The rise in tuition fees has also had a significant impact on the number of young people applying to university. According to the latest figures from UCAS, university applications are down for a second year running—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. It is a long-established convention in this place that when someone is making a speech in an Adjournment debate, they are heard with courtesy and in silence. I ask the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) to observe that convention. If she does not feel able to do so, she can leave the Chamber.

Dan Jarvis: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	The figures for students in England show a drop of 6.5% from 2012. The coalition’s decision to raise tuition
	fees has made it even harder for young people, particularly those from less well-off backgrounds, to gain access to higher education.
	The focus of this debate is on young people, but it is important to reflect for a moment on the huge contribution that teachers make to supporting them. It is a truism to say that we never forget a good teacher. I know that leadership in schools is hugely important, and in my constituency, we have some great head teachers, including Simon Barber at Holy Trinity, Neil Hutchinson at Carlton community college, Dave Whittaker at Springwell, Sue Hayter at Greenacre, Sharon Rossedes at Darton college, Nick Bowen at Horizon—just over the boundary in the neighbouring constituency—and Colin Booth, the principal of Barnsley college. I have also been inspired by many other teachers I have met, including Mat Wright, Phil Evans, Kathryn Smith, Leanne Crowther, Sharon Stacey, Steve Iredale, Kate Davies, Vicki Bruff, Eleanor Wright and many, many more.
	However, the truth of the matter is that many, if not most, teachers feel undervalued. Many have told me how low morale is, and many have shared with me the fact that they struggle to sleep at night because of the pressure of the job. I recently received a letter from a maths teacher. He told me that over half his colleagues had considered leaving the profession last year. He said:
	“The attacks on pay, pensions and conditions of service are without precedent...I feel angry. I feel undervalued, and as though I am a scape goat for the ills of society”.
	What can the Minister say to him and the countless thousands of others in the teaching profession who feel like that? Will he come to Barnsley to meet teachers to discuss these matters and education more generally?
	I want briefly to say something about apprenticeships and other vocational routes.
	For too long, people have focused on the 50% that go to university; now it is time to also focus on the other 50%—the forgotten 50%. For too long, politicians have viewed vocational and academic education in silos, leading to a focus on the latter at the expense of the quality and status of the former. Approaching further education as a whole will allow the benefits of both forms of learning to be experienced by a greater number of young people, offering a broader and richer education, better suited to the needs and the challenges of a modern economy because today’s apprentices face very different challenges.
	Many young people can expect to go through several career changes in their lifetimes, requiring them to possess a more flexible and adaptable skill set. These new challenges demand a co-ordinated and hands-on approach from Government, as well as from figures in the business and education sectors.

Julie Hilling: Does my hon. Friend agree that the downgrading of careers advice given to young people has contributed to some of the difficulties faced by young people not always knowing which is the best route for them, when they are not encouraged either to stay in education or to take up apprenticeships. That lack of good career guidance is detrimental to their future prosperity and health.

Dan Jarvis: I am grateful and completely agree with my hon. Friend. The decision young people make about their future career destinations is an incredibly important
	one. It can make such a difference if they are able to receive helpful and useful careers advice in tandem with other advice that they receive from schools.
	The vast bulk of additional apprenticeship places created by the Government have come in the post-25 age range, with an increase of some 367%, but the latest figures show that 69,600 16 to 18-year-olds started an apprenticeship in 2012-13 compared to 79,100 in the previous year—a drop of over 12%. Those in the 16-to-25 category risk being left behind. Our country and the town I am proud to represent are clearly in need of fresh initiatives aimed at addressing youth unemployment, and it is my constituency that is helping to lead the way in the fight against youth unemployment.

Jim Shannon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that initiatives could be used to encourage more young women to enter into apprenticeships, which is one of the markets waiting to be developed?

Dan Jarvis: I absolutely agree, but time is running short, so I must mention briefly an initiative in my constituency.
	The Minister may recall that I have written to him about the “Barnsley apprenticeship pledge”—a pilot scheme pioneered by Barnsley college, which is working in partnership with nine of Barnsley’s major public and private sector employers to ensure that 2.5% of their work force are apprentices. Schemes such as the pledge not only provide skills for young people, but provide businesses with the opportunity to expand and tailor a work force that meets their needs.
	Finally, I would like to touch briefly on the issue of youth unemployment. Despite the recent figures showing that overall unemployment is going down, the job market for young people is still extremely difficult. Youth unemployment continues to climb with a growing number of NEETs—those not in education, employment or training. According to the latest figures for my constituency, the number of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance is, at 7.4%, still higher than in May 2010. With 900 JSA claimants aged 18 to 24—a figure up from this point in 2011—youth unemployment continues to remain a serious problem in Barnsley.
	The Government’s answer to youth unemployment was to introduce the youth contract, aimed at providing training and skills. However, the youth contract has been ineffective, and has failed significantly to gain employers willing to support the scheme. Fewer than 6,000 young people have been helped into permanent jobs—just 3.4% of young people on the Work programme. Those left behind are often people who are desperate for work, want to earn a living, get on the housing ladder, start families and contribute to our town—but there are simply not the jobs available.
	This is a tough time to be growing up. There are genuine concerns about the need to ensure that young people secure the right education, training, apprenticeships and academic opportunities. My concern is that we are running the risk that the talents of thousands of our young people will go to waste. That is why we must talk up the importance of raising aspirations among young people. Research findings have shown that low aspirations are related to poor academic attainment and professional achievement—and that is an all too common trend in times of austerity. We must therefore take every single
	opportunity to encourage, inspire, persuade and, when necessary, cajole the young people in our constituencies to get on and realise their ambitions, hopes and dreams.
	I urge the Minister and the Government to do all that they can to support the young people in my constituency and throughout our country, so that they can be given the best possible start in life. After all, they are the future of the country.

Matthew Hancock: It is a great pleasure to respond to the debate, not least because, as the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) told us, the beginning of life is full of hope. I strongly agree with him about the need for and the benefits of aspiration and about the duty that we all have to encourage and strengthen it, and to support those who need nurturing as well as challenging those who are ready to rise to the challenge. Indeed, I agreed with much of what he said.
	Let me now bring the hon. Gentleman up to date on some developments that he may consider to be in the spirit of support for Barnsley. He can help me, and help the Government, by telling his constituents about offers that can promote the very ambitions and goals that he has described.
	Youth unemployment is undoubtedly a challenge throughout the country. It has been rising for far too long—its slow and sclerotic rise began in 2004—but, thankfully, it is now falling, and in Barnsley 210 fewer people aged between 18 and 24 are unemployed than was the case a year ago. As the hon. Gentleman said, 900 are still unemployed, but that is the lowest figure for the last five years, and the figure is falling year on year. Things are moving in the right direction. While 900 young unemployed people are obviously 900 too many, make no mistake: we are focusing four square on dealing with the problem, as the hon. Gentleman is urging us to do. The youth contract, which he mentioned, has helped about 6,000 people in Barnsley, and I think that, given the youth unemployment figure of 900, the ratio is pretty good.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned apprenticeships. The 75% increase in the number of apprenticeships over the last two years to more than 1,300 is very welcome. I pay tribute to Barnsley college, not only because, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is an outstanding further education college which does a huge amount of work for Barnsley and for the whole community, but because its success rate in apprenticeships is 96%—higher than the 74% national success rate. It is outstanding in terms of its Ofsted grade, but also in terms of results.
	The town of Barnsley also benefits from being represented by a strong advocate, and there are areas of agreement between the hon. Gentleman and me. The first issue on which we agree is the need for more employer engagement in education. Young people need to be prepared not just for an academic future—important though that is—but for a life in work. They need to understand what work is: to understand not only its benefits but how to engage in it. It is crucial for social mobility that we help everyone to understand what it takes to get a good job, and to hold down a job or an apprenticeship.
	I also of course agree on the need to support disabled people and people with additional learning needs in Barnsley and across the country. I agree strongly with the hon. Gentleman about removing funding disparities. Our funding reforms for those aged between 16 and 19, which come into force this September, remove the system that was in place for 10 years or so, whereby funding was applied per qualification. That meant that those who took a lot of qualifications, who tend to be the best educated, ended up getting more funding for their education from 16 to 19, and those who did fewer qualifications got less funding. People in full-time education who were doing, say, one or two BTECS, equivalent to one or two A-levels, would be funded at about half the rate of a very bright pupil doing five A-levels. That was wrong. We have changed that so that every pupil will be funded according to the same formula, with the same basic rate, with adjustments so that those from disadvantaged backgrounds have slightly more. There are other alterations for those taking particularly expensive courses. However, the fundamental point is that we fund per pupil from 16 to 19. I hope that the hon. Gentleman supports that change.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the issues of VAT and free school meals, both of which I recognise. On free school meals, we need to be careful what we wish for. Schools have a duty to provide free school meals to sixth formers, but they do not get funded for it. If colleges asked for the duty and we were to be fair and have a level playing field, we would give them the duty without giving them the funding for it. I am not sure that that is exactly what he is calling for. We give a bursary to support the most disadvantaged 16 to 19-year-olds, including some in Barnsley, who need additional support, including for school meals.
	What the hon. Gentleman said about Saturday morning lessons in English and maths was interesting. I strongly agree with him that English and maths are crucial. All the evidence shows that, as well as being academic skills, they are the two most important vocational skills. I will look into what he said about Ofsted and see what the circumstances were. Of course, Ofsted is independent.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman strongly on another aspect: the importance of data, the league tables and the need for the tables to be on a level playing field. We need to show not only exam results in an equal way for different types of provider, but the various destinations that people go to. Exams are important but they are a means to an end. It is about what proportion of people get an apprenticeship, what proportion of people go to university, how many get into work and how many go on to further study. We are committed to bringing that richer, more detailed destination data into the public domain. I hope that he welcomes that.
	There are some areas where we do not have a disagreement of purpose, but we do have a disagreement in terms of what the Government are doing. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of early years and of everyone getting a good start in life. Indeed, the Government are bringing in the offer for two-year-olds and extending the age range for the most disadvantaged two-year-olds to ensure that they have support to help them to get a good start.
	I agree about the phrase “The forgotten 50%”, which we hear almost as an apology from some Labour Members. They have not been forgotten by us. The introduction,
	strengthening and development of the apprenticeship proposal is vital in ensuring that everyone gets a good start. We have made it clear that we want to see a new norm—that young people, when they leave school, go, of their own choice, either to a university or into an apprenticeship. Our job in government is to ensure that high-quality offers for each option are available, and higher apprenticeships in particular show that, if one goes into an apprenticeship, one can progress all the way through. I again heard at the weekend the Labour shadow Secretary of State saying he agreed with the 50% target for universities, but that can unwittingly push people into the wrong choices for them.
	Finally, on the point about linear rather than modular exams, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about education not being just a conveyor belt of exams, but modular exams are more of a conveyor belt. We saw last summer the difficulties that a modular system can get our education system into. Linear exams are precisely about testing people on what they have achieved at the end of their studies, rather than constantly asking them to learn for another exam and another exam, and to learn information just so long as they can get through
	the exam and the module. Instead it is about imbuing people with a deeper sense of what that knowledge conveys.
	The drive for rigour and reform in our education system is something that progressive Members on both sides of this House ought to support. They ought to support it whether there are tight budgets or not, and whatever the reasons for those tight budgets are.
	I hope the hon. Gentleman will look at the answers I have given about the apprenticeship programme, the new traineeship programme coming in in August, and the rising standards we are driving through in schools and colleges in Barnsley and across the country, and will reflect to his constituents not only that things are indeed tough but are getting better, but also that there is a great offer from a Government who are determined to support young people and to ensure that youth unemployment falls every year.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.